hat tip to constant reader wilfred for this item
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In our house, when money's tight, we consider which luxuries we normally enjoy that we can do without. We eat out less often. We take a cheaper vacation than the one we had hoped for. We keep on walking past Century 21*, pretending it's not there.
When the Federal government finds itself in the same position, however, it decides it's time for the taxpayers to buy the president a yacht.
The Senate voted 65-30 for the legislation late on Saturday that sets aside funds for a range of priorities including a presidential yacht, foreign aid and energy.
OK, so it's only $2 million dollars to buy back the U.S.S. Sequoia which was sold three decades ago. (A price distressing the current owners, who are claiming it's now worth $9.8 million.) But, come on, what else would we spend that $2 million on, if not a boat for the Bushes. I mean how else do we expect them to live in the style they're accustomed to, if we deny them this basic necessity? But that's not the ultimate insult. The ultimate insult is that this pork-ladden monster** is something these jokers are proud of.
"I'm very proud of the fact that we held the line and made Congress make choices and set priorities, because it follows our philosophy," Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said in House debate.
*Favorite discount clothing store.
**$335,000 to protect sunflowers in North Dakota from blackbird damage. $60 million for a new courthouse in Las Cruces, New Mexico. $225,000 to study catfish genomes at Alabama's Auburn University.
Hooray, we can now have a discussion about the appropriateness of spending government money to preserve national heritage pieces.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | November 22, 2004 at 11:41 AM
The boat is just stupid, of course, but I'd like to know more about these other projects before labelling them useless. Agricultural research doesn't seem like the worst thing to spend money on, so the sunflower and catfish projects could well be justified.
As for the courthouse, $60 million sounds like a lot, but that depends on size and the nature of the facilities. Does it include a jail, for example?
I do think the boat is a great symbolic issue, and Democrats ought to make hay with it.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov | November 22, 2004 at 11:44 AM
Will I, an average taxpayer, be able to board and explore the yacht Sebastian?
If not, your argument falls flat.
Posted by: Edward | November 22, 2004 at 11:44 AM
Bernard,
I'm not saying those programs are not useful. But when the increase for education is as pitiful as it is (meaning local taxes are gonna have to increase to comply with No Child Left Behind), I don't see this budget as anything remotely near the sort of "tough" choices they're claiming it is.
Posted by: Edward | November 22, 2004 at 11:51 AM
Edward, I wouldn't be suprised if you were able to actually see and visit it - the article in no way implies that Bush is going to be zipping around in it for fun; it states only that they've purchased the old Presidential Yacht.
Posted by: Jonas Cord | November 22, 2004 at 12:31 PM
it states only that they've purchased the old Presidential Yacht.
I see nothing that suggests I'll have access to it comparable to that I'd have to other heritage pieces, Jonas. What gives you that idea?
Posted by: Edward | November 22, 2004 at 12:43 PM
"Pork" exists in the eye of the beholder. I think most "eyes" will agree that the Presidential yacht is "pork", although it really didn't become an issue until, let's see, was it yet another southern populist (Jimmy Carter) who decided it was only O.K. to lust in his heart for time on a yacht, but not to actually have a yacht.
Catfish research, sunflower protection, and a new courthouse might be good uses of my tax money (says my eyes).
I'd prefer paying for those projects over, say, paying for maintaining and outfitting the Abu Gharib prison with cat-o'-nine-tails for each guard, or demolishing it, or making it into an Iraqi heritage site.
Cancer research: Federal research money spent on curing MY tumor is necessary. Federal research money spent on curing YOUR tumor is pork. Why should I care? Why can't you (I don't know and don't care who "you" is; I just know "you" ain't me). Why can't "you" solve your tumor problems by depending on the kindness of others or petition your State government for money?
Just kidding. But I love this crappy game we play all the time.
But yeah, we don't need the yacht. I wanna spend that money on "your" tumor. Or your catfish. Or your sunflowers. Sorry it goes against someone's pristine ideology.
P.S. This rant, of course, is directed at minor gods, not actual living people
Posted by: John Thullen | November 22, 2004 at 12:48 PM
Edward,
Just a guess, really. Presidents have done just fine without a yacht for 30 years, and I'm guessing everyone's reaction to the President having one again is sufficiently negative to discourage its recommission.
Meanwhile, I always wondered why it wasn't in a museum and I'd figure it would make its way to one now.
John Thullen,
You're gonna need some sort of ideology to draw a line somewhere, right? Or is it a sunflower and catfish in every pot under President Thullen? ;-)
Posted by: Jonas Cord | November 22, 2004 at 12:53 PM
The Sequoia may be the most famous boat in American history. It only takes a moment in google land to figure that out. I couldn't verify that Democratic Congressman from Maryland "Dutch" Ruppersberger sponsered the bill.
What we're going to have in the next 2-3 years, is the most successful and most criticized Congress ever. I predict a new term to challenge 'borked', 'schieffered'!
Posted by: blogbudsman | November 22, 2004 at 12:54 PM
What we're going to have in the next 2-3 years, is the most successful and most criticized Congress ever.
If you judge "success" by their willingness to drop rules that have become incovenient for the GOP's leadership, insert laws that potentially invade taxpayers privacy into budgets, insert laws that nibble at the corners of Roe v. Wade, and not let the biggest deficit in history give them even a momentary pause in stuffing the budget with pork, you might be right. They're off to a great start.
Posted by: Edward | November 22, 2004 at 01:01 PM
The Sequoia may be the most famous boat in American history.
Are you using "boat" as distinct from "ship?" How about, say, the Constitution, the Nautilus, the Missouri, the Arizona, just off the top of my head?
Hooray, we can now have a discussion about the appropriateness of spending government money to preserve national heritage pieces.
Or about which national heritage pieces to preserve, perhaps. It's a very far cry from saying let's not buy back the yacht to saying no money should be spent on national heritage preservation.
If you want to justify this on historical grounds, go ahead. If you want to say we shouldn't spend anything on preserving national heritage go ahead. Otherwise, I don't see your point.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov | November 22, 2004 at 01:11 PM
Well, no, Jonas, just a catfish or a sunflower in their respective pots. Or am I on some sort of slippery slope? Oddly enough, these projects under the umbrella of domestic spending (all of 15% of the Federal budget), were being paid for by tax receipts for a few years prior to 2000. What happened?
And, by the way, I agree with you that maybe citizen tours of the yacht will be provided. I wasn't so upset with the President having a yacht in the first place, but the self-described-outsider (you know, as opposed to all those evil insiders)-prig-Carter-come-to-Washington to demagogue spending made a big deal out of it.
So now, more outsider-prigs-etc. come to Washington to demagogue all that awful spending and the first thing they want is the yacht back, to be skippered by yet another demagogue who doesn't like spending.
Which is the kernel of Edward's point, I think. But I'm just saying why throw in the catfish and the sunflowers with the yacht. Let's throw in cancer, too. And Abu Gharib.
Which is my idea of a slippery slope. Really, really slippery, and funny.
Now, I, as your President, must call this press conference to an end, because I need to go purge someone from the C.I.A. (yet another horrific insider) who expressed a contradictory opinion last week. Thank you. ;-)
Posted by: John Thullen | November 22, 2004 at 01:22 PM
"It's a very far cry from saying let's not buy back the yacht to saying no money should be spent on national heritage preservation."
I wasn't really saying either. I was suggesting that it is probably most useful to discuss the purchase of the boat in the context of national hertiage preservation. I think official national heritage preservation is overdone, so I wouldn't have had the government purchase the boat. I know a lot of people on this site don't agree with my position on the government and national heritage preservation, so I was just pointing out that if you want to discuss the boat, you should probably do so in its proper context.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | November 22, 2004 at 01:33 PM
Alternatively, some of us might think that the proper "context" isn't "should we fund any historic preservation" but "should we fund any earmarks which have not gone through any public process."
Posted by: Doh | November 22, 2004 at 01:44 PM
Ok, sure. But once again, please note that I did not try to make the context that of not funding any preservation. I tried to suggest the context was that of whatever your beliefs about governmental historical preservation are.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | November 22, 2004 at 01:52 PM
blogbudsman: The Sequoia may be the most famous boat in American history. It only takes a moment in google land to figure that out.
So famous you have to google it to find out just what the heck it is.
Posted by: Gromit | November 22, 2004 at 02:07 PM
John Thullen gets it.
It's the symbolism of a president who's in the position of having to ask the nation to tighten its belt to control spending, buying himself a yacht.
It's foolish, it's bad-timing, and it's totally telling.
Posted by: Edward | November 22, 2004 at 02:11 PM
And the symbolism is tempting, but not necessarily true. Saying Bush bought "himself" a yacht is ridiculous. We don't know where or for what it will be used for. Just because it's the former Presidential Yacht doesn't mean it's his and he's going to be tooling around in it.
Posted by: Jonas Cord | November 22, 2004 at 02:27 PM
"it's totally telling"
of what?
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | November 22, 2004 at 02:33 PM
Saying Bush bought "himself" a yacht is ridiculous.
Not if he signs the budget, it isn't.
"it's totally telling"
of what?
The disconnect. What compassionate leader would allow the symbolism of the purchase of a presidential yacht to coincide with what are expected to be serious budget cuts? When Americans are working two jobs, just to pay the bills. When health insurance is a luxury that millions cannot afford.
Herbert, in a column titled "Shhh, Don't Say 'Poverty'" in the Times today noted something that struck me as soon as I read hilzoy's post about the proposed tax reform. Things are going to get much harder for the country's poor, but you never hear Bush talk about them...it's like they're invisible to him:
Posted by: Edward | November 22, 2004 at 02:45 PM
bernard asks "Are you using "boat" as distinct from "ship?" How about, say, the Constitution, the Nautilus, the Missouri, the Arizona, just off the top of my head?"
No, I am not. Although I think of the Arizona a little differently, more in line with the Indianapolis.
Gromit snipes "So famous you have to google it to find out just what the heck it is."
No, but it's fun to learn more. I was looking
Edward snarks "It's the symbolism of a president who's in the position of having to ask the nation to tighten its belt to control spending, buying himself a yacht."
Sure it's not an Inauguration present from the Democrats?
Posted by: blogbudsman | November 22, 2004 at 02:48 PM
Well, Blogs, what were you 'looking' for??? ... Congressman Ruppersberger's involvement in the bill.
Posted by: blogbudsman | November 22, 2004 at 02:51 PM
of what?
Of why Republican politicians can't be trusted with public monies.
Seriously though, Jonas, Sebastian, do you really not get it? Edward's unfortunate (IMO) phrasing notwithstanding, it doesn't matter one little bit whether it's Bush's yacht or a national treasure. What matters is wanting to have one's cake and eat it too. Are we tightening our belts or spending freely? Are we at war or are we not? Do we want a weaker dollar or a stronger dollar?
Let's make up our minds please...
Posted by: radish | November 22, 2004 at 02:55 PM
I was suggesting that it is probably most useful to discuss the purchase of the boat in the context of national hertiage preservation.
And one aspect of that context is the process by which sites or objects are selected. I think doh is saying that simply selecting one because some Congressamn likes the idea is not the best process. However much of this you think we should do, surely he's right about that.
I think official national heritage preservation is overdone, so I wouldn't have had the government purchase the boat. I know a lot of people on this site don't agree with my position on the government and national heritage preservation, so I was just pointing out that if you want to discuss the boat, you should probably do so in its proper context.
I have no idea how much we spend on this, so I don't know if it's too hot, too cold, or just right. But unless you think the right amount is zero, it looks more like an argument over how much to spend on what, rather than whether to do it at all. So there's really no great principle involved, just a question of budgets and project selection method.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov | November 22, 2004 at 03:00 PM
Edward's unfortunate (IMO) phrasing notwithstanding,
Which phrase? "telling"?
What matters is wanting to have one's cake and eat it too. Are we tightening our belts or spending freely? Are we at war or are we not? Do we want a weaker dollar or a stronger dollar?
Exactly!
Posted by: Edward | November 22, 2004 at 03:03 PM
"of what?"
I admit it's a little hard to tell, isn't it?
Options:
Of a set of people who really want no conversation whatsoever about historic preservation sites but just need a stinking yacht. And what's that got to do with the taxes, and deficits, or that Medicaid budgets are being cut in various states?
or
of a set of people who do want a conversation about historic preservation sites, but whose first gambit at the negotiation table is to raise you "one yacht" so a that a bunch of us say, yeah, but what about sunflowers, catfish, Medicaid, cancer, and Social Security(?) and then get all of that cut in exchange for them giving up the stinking yacht. See, we all sacrificed. Or maybe, the compromise is that I give up all historic preservation with my tax dollars, except for the yacht. Which is privatized in late 2008 and harbored in a slip on the southern coast of Maine.
or
of a set of people who, hemmed in by nasty activist judges, decide they need somewhere to conduct clandestine torture of swarthy-looking American citizens free of inconvenient constitutional objections.
What could be a better place than a stinking yacht?
or
a set of people who plan to eviscerate Federal spending on social programs and other initiatives of all sorts either through legislation, stocking the Supreme Court with those who will actively ajudicate the New Deal out of existence, but who want to send a little message that the yacht-owning of us won't be harmed by these "reforms", in fact, if all of you would just work until you croak without medical insurance and quit being so jealous of out stinking yachts, the world would be a better place, maybe not for you, but for me .. me the guy with the stinking yacht, and whaddya mean by "stinking"?
Just a few guesses.
Posted by: John Thullen | November 22, 2004 at 03:11 PM
I meant the "buying himself a yacht" bit.
He's not buying himself a yacht, he's buying me a yacht, on my already-overextended line of credit, whether I want one or not.
Posted by: radish | November 22, 2004 at 03:16 PM
Any care that Congress is considering making it illegal to fast-forward past commercials?
Posted by: rilkefan | November 22, 2004 at 03:39 PM
He's not buying himself a yacht, he's buying me a yacht, on my already-overextended line of credit, whether I want one or not.
Yeah, but symbolically, he's getting a yacht, and I'm not.
Posted by: Edward | November 22, 2004 at 03:41 PM
blogbudsman: Gromit snipes "So famous you have to google it to find out just what the heck it is."
No, but it's fun to learn more. I was looking
Okay, lets learn something. From Google:
May be the most famous boat in American history?
Posted by: Gromit | November 22, 2004 at 03:44 PM
Radish,
You're right to ask these questions. Bush's don't-tax-but-spend-more behavior is completely out of hand, which is one reason why I don't support him.
But I don't think that pretending that he bought himself a yacht is going to make this point very well because it's completely inaccurate. I guess he's buying himself satellites and spaceships through NASA as well. Sounds like a party to me!
Edward,
Symbolically now? Come on Edward, this is silly partisan rhetoric and not intellectually honest. Maybe he'll ride around in his new yacht in the fountain in front of the new Native American museum he bought himself recently.
Posted by: Jonas Cord | November 22, 2004 at 03:45 PM
Come on Edward, this is silly partisan rhetoric and not intellectually honest.
And?
Of course it is. I hope the Dems use it in the same way the GOP would in reverse.
I actually do object to this, however. I expect things to get much harder for working class Americans over the next few years (many more will likely loose their health insurance), and, I mean, come on...a yacht!? It's like rubbing salt in the wound.
Posted by: Edward | November 22, 2004 at 03:50 PM
Maybe he'll ride around in his new yacht in the fountain in front of the new Native American museum he bought himself recently.
As was pointed out earlier, the Sequoia--even if used as a tourist attraction--will have limited access and/or appeal. Certainly, it will draw nowhere near the interest of the new Native American museum.
Having been aboard the Sequoia several times, there's just not a whole lot to see. It's much less well-outfitted than many yachts of its era and it's small. I'd add that one of the reasons the Govt. got rid of it was it cost a small fortune in annual upkeep and maintenance.
Yeah, $2M isn't a lot of money in the grand scheme of things. But it's better spent elsewhere.
Posted by: Jadegold | November 22, 2004 at 04:03 PM
'..ask the nation to tighten its belt"
Since when? I'm thinking of pushing my personal debt another 5 grand higher using our national fiscal philosophy as an example.
Posted by: judson | November 22, 2004 at 04:06 PM
Well, that's where you and I differ I guess. If you're looking for one of the reasons why no one saw me at Democratic headquarters this year helping the campaign, there it is.
Not to mention that the main thrust of criticisms against, let's say, Rush Limbaugh, now completely evaporates.
I'm sure there are plenty of fun ways to do this that are also intellectually honest. Which I'd vastly prefer.
For instance, I'm sure a thorough reading of the White House budget would be a goldmine for ridiculous luxuries that Bush is buying for himself.
Posted by: Jonas Cord | November 22, 2004 at 04:27 PM
Jonas: Come on Edward, this is silly partisan rhetoric and not intellectually honest.
Agreed, and having thought about it, my response must reluctantly be the same as Edward's. At the end of the day the Sequoia's historic value is solely as a symbol of executive pomp and privilege. So regardless of any legitimate preservationist merits that repurchasing the yacht might have, on the symbolic level somebody on the hill was rubbing salt in an open wound, and I don't doubt that they knew it.
But I don't think that pretending that he bought himself a yacht is going to make this point very well because it's completely inaccurate.
If only... But I think that's naive. Whether we like it or not, the level at which public discourse is being conducted is a level at which the accuracy of the allegation is not important. Blame who you like for the collapse of discourse, but the symbolic content here is unmistakable. Asking Dems not to take advantage of it is asking them to disarm unilaterally. They are, justifiably, no longer interested in doing so. In fact if they have any sense they will attack relentlessly for the next two years.
BTW I am genuinely surprised that Gary Silversmith isn't much of a contributor. Whassup wi' that? How did this get inserted, and who was responsible?
...a thorough reading of the White House budget...
Ah yes, now you're talkin' some real big fun! Wanna know what else might be big fun? Filing a FOIA for all those bimonthly reports to Congress which are required at the end of HJR 114. Yee haw...
Posted by: radish | November 22, 2004 at 04:57 PM
So gromit, by your logic, a million four don't know what the Mayflower is and only nineteen hundred don't know what the Sequoia is. You might argue some of the million four were looking for a moving company.
Far, far more historic events occurred on the Sequoia than did the Mayflower. Maybe a few mad libs can sail it to Canada. Heck, Clinton did more damage with executive orders the night before he left the White House. The only thing up with this is my very first contention, this Congress will do great things while going through Hell from the left.
Posted by: blogbudsman | November 22, 2004 at 05:28 PM
Far, far more historic events occurred on the Sequoia than did the Mayflower.
Debatable. Let's face the fact the Sequoia wasn't central to any historic event (IOW, such events could have easily been held elsewhere) while the Mayflower was central to the historic event.
Posted by: Jadegold | November 22, 2004 at 05:43 PM
So gromit, by your logic, a million four don't know what the Mayflower is and only nineteen hundred don't know what the Sequoia is.
That's not even close to Gromit's logic...
Posted by: Anarch | November 22, 2004 at 06:22 PM
Just to add to the fun:
"USS Monitor" has 243,000 hits, while "CSS Virginia" gets 654,000. Odd. Why aren't the numbers closer?
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov | November 22, 2004 at 07:38 PM
Perhaps this is what bbm is referring to as historical
(via wampum blog)
Posted by: liberal japonicus | November 22, 2004 at 08:04 PM
"USS Monitor" has 243,000 hits, while "CSS Virginia" gets 654,000. Odd. Why aren't the numbers closer?
But if you add 'Civil war" to the search terms, you get 14,000 for Monitor and 8,000+ for the Virginia. Also, you have to use quotes to make sure that you aren't getting hits for the state. If you leave out the quotes, you get 34,000 for Civil war css virginia.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | November 22, 2004 at 08:09 PM
Also, you have to use quotes to make sure that you aren't getting hits for the state. If you leave out the quotes, you get 34,000 for Civil war css virginia.
Good point, lj. Thanks.
With quotes but without "Civil War" I get 12,500 for CSS Virginia, 30,100 for USS Monitor.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov | November 22, 2004 at 08:36 PM
I also just realized that the USS Monitor's resting place was recently discovered and parts of the ship were recovered, which probably accounts for part of the disparity between the two.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | November 22, 2004 at 10:17 PM
Blogbudsman, in this context hits represent web pages Google has indexed containing those terms, not searches conducted for those terms. In other words, it is a crude measure of how widely that term is represented on the web. Also, if the USS Sequoia had a nationally-known company named after it whose logo was a graphic representation of the yacht, I wouldn't cite that as evidence of its comparative obscurity.
Posted by: Gromit | November 22, 2004 at 10:32 PM
gromit, thanks for attempting to explain your crude argument, whatever it was. So instead of "So famous you have to google it to find out just what the heck it is."...your position now is " ...in this context hits represent web pages Google has indexed containing those terms, not searches conducted for those terms." Am I to understand then, that because Carter auctioned off a National Treasure for a couple hundred thousand thirty years ago, that is now worth $9 million, and we're going to pay $2 million, that there are possibly fewer web pages dedicated to it at this point in time. So were you for using google hits as any representation of historic value before you were against it? Or was there any relevance at all? Regardless, acquiring this historic yacht is an excellent decision.
Posted by: blogbudsman | November 23, 2004 at 05:47 AM
blogbudsman, I'm not interested in getting any deeper into a debate over something this trivial. I'll only leave you with your own words, and with the observation that you seem too intelligent to genuinely miscomprehend why I dispute them and how I've backed up my position.
"The Sequoia may be the most famous boat in American history. It only takes a moment in google land to figure that out." - Posted by: blogbudsman at November 22, 2004 05:54 PM
Posted by: Gromit | November 23, 2004 at 08:02 AM
Don't forget that some of us still think of the Virginia as the Merrimack. A search for Civil War Merrimack yields 29,300 hits ("uss merrimac" has 2,200 and "uss merrimack" has 3,200).
Posted by: Doh | November 23, 2004 at 08:52 AM
Don't forget that some of us still think of the Virginia as the Merrimack.
damn yankees...
Posted by: liberal japonicus | November 23, 2004 at 09:19 AM
I was wondering what this "Virginia" you guys were talking about was. I've always heard it called the Merrimack as well. Is this really a North/South thing?
Posted by: Gromit | November 23, 2004 at 09:54 AM