Does President Obama play too much Golf?

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by dave67az

Quote:

Originally Posted by reflection

-it cost the tax payers $100,000s each round he plays.  there are at least 30 carts for his group.  Mostly for his secret service team to patrol the area near him while he's playing.

Don't buy into the hype.  Those comments about how much it costs in secret service protection when the president does this or that is bogus.  Those are salaried employees.  They don't hire a batch of agents from a temp agency and dismiss them after the round of golf.  Those agents would be paid the same amount whether he was at the course or at the White House.  Other than gas to get there and back, I'm not sure how it costs the taxpayers any more than it would if he stayed home.  Am I missing something?

You make a good point in that it doesn't cost taxpayers extra money in secret service salaries when the POTUS golfs. However the point being made there is that the secret service requires additional carts, not additional salaries. And there *are* substantial extra costs for things like that when the president golfs: I'm sure the course is reimbursed for not just the cart rentals and POTUS greens fees, but for all the lost revenue (greens fees, concessions, etc.) from having to close to the public for most of the day. Then add in the costs for any local law enforcement used for security, police escort, etc. Then add any administrative costs required to handle all these local services being paid for. Then add the cost of travel for the president and his entourage. (I'm not saying he's flying from point A to point B just to golf, but there *are* travel expenses even if he's just driving across town.)

I'm sure there are many other line items I haven't listed. They may not add up to $100,000, but they're for sure not zero.

[Divotmaker77]

I play many more rounds than Obama and work full time. I am able to do it because I am good at my job, know how to use my time wisely, and the invention of the cell phone has done wonders. I have no issue with anyone playing a lot of golf as long as they get their job done.

Now, we can argue if he has gotten the job done. When it comes down to it, the President is more of a figure head who does some press conference, and signs bills. Other than that, I do not think having a President in the oval office 15 hours a day is going to drastically change how screwed up Congress is.  If anything, they should get all of Congress together and have several golf outings to get them to start getting along again.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

You make a good point in that it doesn't cost taxpayers extra money in secret service salaries when the POTUS golfs. However the point being made there is that the secret service requires additional carts, not additional salaries. And there *are* substantial extra costs for things like that when the president golfs: I'm sure the course is reimbursed for not just the cart rentals and POTUS greens fees, but for all the lost revenue (greens fees, concessions, etc.) from having to close to the public for most of the day. Then add in the costs for any local law enforcement used for security, police escort, etc. Then add any administrative costs required to handle all these local services being paid for. Then add the cost of travel for the president and his entourage. (I'm not saying he's flying from point A to point B just to golf, but there *are* travel expenses even if he's just driving across town.)

I'm sure there are many other line items I haven't listed. They may not add up to $100,000, but they're for sure not zero.

This isn't a private course.  It'd paid for by taxpayers already.  It's a military course.  I would bet that they don't get compensated for any "lost revenue" because something tells me the fact that the president plays there increases revenue more than they lose from 30 cart rentals and 6 hours worth of tee times.  Military courses are self-funded through NAF (non-appropriated funds) and, although I can't say for certain, I'm betting that their budget at Andrews accounts for the Presidential visits.  And since they have three courses, and reschedule tee times to put golfers on the other courses, I'm not sure if they're really losing much money on a Presidential visit.  Certainly not hundreds of thousands of dollars.

As for local law enforcement, again unless we're talking about bringing in reserve cops, they're already salaried employees.  If he flies there by chopper, I can see that as an expense.  But even when we see numbers on how much it costs to fly Air Force One or Marine One the numbers are fudged.  They look at the total cost of fueling and maintaining an aircraft over it's lifetime, estimate how many flying hours it will be used during it's lifetime, and then calculate what the average cost of an hour of flight is.  But the vast majority of that cost was paid for when it was built, long (decades, even) before Obama became the President.

I see the same kind of inflated numbers when I hear complaints about how much is wasted every time my Air Force does a flyover for a sporting event or funeral.  Sorry, but it's a thorn in my side and it accomplishes nothing but turn people against the government.  There is no way that a round of golf costs hundreds of thousands of dollars more than if he hadn't played golf that day.  No way.

[David in FL]

When it comes down to it, the President is more of a figure head who does some press conference, and signs bills.

:-\ Please don't vote in November.

[Mr. Desmond]

After threatening to take a swing at Obama, the out-of-control Tags Romney - Tags, seriously? - ought to relax, maybe take up the game of golf.

[David in FL]

After threatening to take a swing at Obama, the out-of-control Tags Romney - Tags, seriously? - ought to relax, maybe take up the game of golf.

Maybe a little time in the federal pen would settle the idiot down!

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by David in FL

Maybe a little time in the federal pen would settle the idiot down!

Nah, we incarcerate too many people as it is ... and it adds to the burgeoning deficit.

I think taking up golf is punishment enough...

[sacm3bill]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave67az

This isn't a private course.  It'd paid for by taxpayers already...

Military course or not, they still charge people to play. (Rates: http://www.aafbgc.com/Golf/Course_Fees.asp). So for every person who can't play on that course because the POTUS has it for the day, that course loses x amount of dollars in revenue. If as you suppose the Andrews budget already accounts for that, it's *still* taxpayer money that was used for that budget that funds the POTUS playing there.

As far as being rescheduled to other courses, the poster said they "try" to do that - doesn't sound like it's guaranteed. Even if they can, there's no guarantee the player will still want to play (based on the poster's description, the other courses lack the quality of the one the POTUS plays on.)

Quote:

As for local law enforcement, again unless we're talking about bringing in reserve cops, they're already salaried employees...

My understanding is they often *are* either reserve cops or cops getting overtime. If OTOH they are just reshuffling officers from where they would ordinarily be to POTUS detail, then I guess technically it's not costing taxpayer money, but I certainly hope that having fewer cops on duty helping private citizens while the POTUS is in town is *not* what happens...

Quote:

I see the same kind of inflated numbers when I hear complaints about how much is wasted every time my Air Force does a flyover for a sporting event or funeral.  Sorry, but it's a thorn in my side and it accomplishes nothing but turn people against the government...

We all know how much fuel costs - even if you consider only the cost of that, the numbers don't need to be inflated for them to seem really big.  I'm not saying there's no time or place for flyovers, but I am saying it's each person's right to decide for themselves whether it's a waste or not.  And I think it's safe to say that flyovers are very near the bottom of most people's lists of why they've turned against the government.

Quote:

There is no way that a round of golf costs hundreds of thousands of dollars more than if he hadn't played golf that day...

Again, I'm not sure what the exact numbers are, so you may be right. But you're making it sound like no extra taxpayer money is spent, and I don't think that's true. There are numerous reports of cities trying to bill the white house for security costs incurred during a POTUS visit - they are all in the tens of thousands, many are 6 figures.

[k-troop]

Military golf courses in the continental US are not among the categories of MWR activities that receive appropriated funds.  Loss of revenue at a golf course will have an indirect impact, in that various MWR programs do receive appropriated funds, non-appropriated categories (revenue generating) augment the overall MWR program at any given installation, so there will be less overall money in the MWR pot for all programs.

However, not a single additional taxpayer dollar will be expended because the President costs Andrews AFB 2 hours worth of tee times.  Nor will less "revenue" enter the US treasury (that's not how it works).  At best, some other MWR programs will receive incrementally less funds.  Given the size and scope of Andrews' (and the MDW in general) overall program, I can't imagine it's an impact worth mentioning.

As for the other stuff, anywhere the President goes there will be increased security.  Had he chosen (instead of playing golf) to visit schools in Maryland to talk to teachers about the impact of test scores and federal funds, there would have been fuel consumed and additional security costs.  I suppose we should have the Prez just hang out in the Rose Garden all day and not talk about terrorism, or sit in his office reviewing binders full of women.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Military course or not, they still charge people to play. (Rates: http://www.aafbgc.com/Golf/Course_Fees.asp). So for every person who can't play on that course because the POTUS has it for the day, that course loses x amount of dollars in revenue. If as you suppose the Andrews budget already accounts for that, it's *still* taxpayer money that was used for that budget that funds the POTUS playing there.

As far as being rescheduled to other courses, the poster said they "try" to do that - doesn't sound like it's guaranteed. Even if they can, there's no guarantee the player will still want to play (based on the poster's description, the other courses lack the quality of the one the POTUS plays on.)

My understanding is they often *are* either reserve cops or cops getting overtime. If OTOH they are just reshuffling officers from where they would ordinarily be to POTUS detail, then I guess technically it's not costing taxpayer money, but I certainly hope that having fewer cops on duty helping private citizens while the POTUS is in town is *not* what happens...

We all know how much fuel costs - even if you consider only the cost of that, the numbers don't need to be inflated for them to seem really big.  I'm not saying there's no time or place for flyovers, but I am saying it's each person's right to decide for themselves whether it's a waste or not.  And I think it's safe to say that flyovers are very near the bottom of most people's lists of why they've turned against the government.

Again, I'm not sure what the exact numbers are, so you may be right. But you're making it sound like no extra taxpayer money is spent, and I don't think that's true. There are numerous reports of cities trying to bill the white house for security costs incurred during a POTUS visit - they are all in the tens of thousands, many are 6 figures.

Please don't think I'm saying it doesn't cost the taxpayers anything.  My argument was that there's no way it's costing HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of dollars PER ROUND which was the original claim.  I've already conceded that it costs something, at the very minimum the travel costs, but I also asked if I was missing something.  Thanks for pointing out the things I didn't consider.

On the subject of green fees, yes, military courses do charge green fees and cart rental.  From what I understand, when the course is initially built, it usually requires a taxpayer investment.  This is the same for all morale, welfare and recreation facilities, including the base bowling center, the enlisted and officer clubs, the base pool, etc.  After they're built, my understanding was that the combined income from all NAF facilities (clubs, bowling center, golf course) goes into one big fund.  The revenue is projected annually and out of that revenue comes the maintenance of facilities/courses and employee salaries.  There are no taxpayer dollars involved, even if there is a reduced revenue for one reason or another.  They simply have less money in the NAF budget, and as such they aren't allowed to upgrade the golf carts when they wanted to, or remodel the new bowling center when they thought they would, for example.

So as far as I can see, there is no impact on the taxpayers for any lost revenue, regardless of whether they can move those tee times to another course.  Again, this is to the best of my knowledge, having played the courses for years and worked as a Resource Advisor (handling the budget) for my unit at times.

On the subject of cops stationed along the motorcade route, if he indeed drives instead of flies (still don't know which) and if they are reserve officers then obviously those are taxpayer dollars.  Whether the city bills the White House or not, those are taxpayer dollars.  It's either local taxes that pay the bill, or federal tax dollars.  I can't find the website now (I'll keep looking and post an edit to this if I can find it again) but I read on a police forum that because motorcades are so common in the D.C., they are always prepared for them at a moment's notice with additional manning already on the streets.  If this were the case, then I guess you can blame the President for ever driving anywhere, because it's costing the taxpayers dollars to employ additional full time cops in the D.C.  But that would mean golf has nothing to do with the overall cost, as well.

I didn't mean to imply that most people who have turned against the government did so because of flyovers.  But here in west Phoenix, near Luke AFB, we hear a lot of complaints from people in the community who don't have an appreciation for the military.  They complain about flyovers.  They complain about the jet noise at the base (after they CHOSE to buy a house 2 miles from one of the largest Air Force bases in the world).  Maybe it's just their general attitude that's negative because of the economy and housing crisis, who knows, and maybe they're just taking it out on the military when they want to close the base, failing to acknowledge all the jobs and benefits that the base provides to the community.  I don't know.  I was just trying to make the point that one thing is certain:  there isn't a "bill" every time a jet flies.  There are expended items, like fuel, which have an associated cost, but that cost is negligible in budget standards.  It takes a little under $4,000 to fill the tank of an F-16 at current cost of JP-8.  Even if they used an entire tankful (which they don't) for a flyover, we're talking $4,000 per jet.  Considering the sacrifice made by the individual that they're putting into the ground, I think the money is well spent as it sends a message to family and friends that America appreciates that sacrifice.  You're right, most people probably haven't turned against the government because of flyovers, any more than they did so because of the President's golf game.

Again, I'm not saying it doesn't cost anything for him to play golf rather than keep his butt at the White House.  I'm saying it doesn't cost as much as some people claim because most of them don't understand military/federal/municipal budgets.  We don't track things that way, any more than we tracked the cost of medical care I provided to my patients.  Yeah, you can estimate it by saying this is how much we spent and this is how many patients we saw, but to come up with some arbitrary number and say "this is how much it cost" is ludicrous unless they compare how much it would have cost taxpayers for him to stay back at the White House that day.

So, "reflection", would you please tell me where the "$100,000s each round he plays" came from?  Was that just one of those campaign claims that we keep seeing debunked on FactCheck every week or did it come from a reputable source that can break down the costs?

- Dave

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by k-troop

...not a single additional taxpayer dollar will be expended because the President costs Andrews AFB 2 hours worth of tee times...

Right, in this particular case (military course) no taxpayer dollars are expended *at that time* because the course doesn't have to be reimbursed. In the general case of a public course, that would be the case. And in the particular case of a military course, it still costs taxpayers (in the form of budgeting free golf for the POTUS).

Originally Posted by k-troop

Nor will less "revenue" enter the US treasury (that's not how it works)...

Right, no one has said otherwise.

Originally Posted by k-troop

As for the other stuff, anywhere the President goes there will be increased security.  Had he chosen (instead of playing golf) to visit schools in Maryland to talk to teachers about the impact of test scores and federal funds, there would have been fuel consumed and additional security costs.

Right again, and again no one has ever said otherwise. The point is, we as taxpayers have the right to question how our money is spent. Reasonable minds can disagree on how often we should foot the bill for activities that are purely for fun and relaxation. There's a difference between doing your job (e.g., visiting schools to talk about federal funds), and taking a break from it (e.g., golf).

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by k-troop

Military golf courses in the continental US are not among the categories of MWR activities that receive appropriated funds.  Loss of revenue at a golf course will have an indirect impact, in that various MWR programs do receive appropriated funds, non-appropriated categories (revenue generating) augment the overall MWR program at any given installation, so there will be less overall money in the MWR pot for all programs.

However, not a single additional taxpayer dollar will be expended because the President costs Andrews AFB 2 hours worth of tee times.  Nor will less "revenue" enter the US treasury (that's not how it works).  At best, some other MWR programs will receive incrementally less funds.  Given the size and scope of Andrews' (and the MDW in general) overall program, I can't imagine it's an impact worth mentioning.

As for the other stuff, anywhere the President goes there will be increased security.  Had he chosen (instead of playing golf) to visit schools in Maryland to talk to teachers about the impact of test scores and federal funds, there would have been fuel consumed and additional security costs.  I suppose we should have the Prez just hang out in the Rose Garden all day and not talk about terrorism, or sit in his office reviewing binders full of women.

I stand corrected then.  I was always under the impression that the golf course was a NAF asset.  We had a job open last month at the course at Luke AFB and it was listed as a NAF job, so I assumed the course got NAF money.

This article supported that, but it could have changed I guess (this was 2 years ago)...
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123208781

---  addendum ---

After re-reading your post I realize you said "appropriated" funds and not "non-appropriated funds".  My apologies. I'll leave the above comments, though because I think it's important in showing that military golf course management/revenue has nothing to do with taxpayer dollars.  And no, there is nothing to "budget" for the POTUS to play "free golf" at a military course.  There is no taxpayer cost from the course or the base, period.  None.

[sacm3bill]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave67az

On the subject of green fees, yes, military courses do charge green fees and cart rental.  From what I understand, when the course is initially built, it usually requires a taxpayer investment.  This is the same for all morale, welfare and recreation facilities, including the base bowling center, the enlisted and officer clubs, the base pool, etc.  After they're built, my understanding was that the combined income from all NAF facilities (clubs, bowling center, golf course) goes into one big fund.  The revenue is projected annually and out of that revenue comes the maintenance of facilities/courses and employee salaries.  There are no taxpayer dollars involved, even if there is a reduced revenue for one reason or another.  They simply have less money in the NAF budget, and as such they aren't allowed to upgrade the golf carts when they wanted to, or remodel the new bowling center when they thought they would, for example.

Good to know, thanks for elaborating. I'll concede that as long as none of the NAF facilities ever get money from anything other than user fees (i.e., nothing at all from the military budget), then taxpayers aren't on the hook.

Quote:

On the subject of cops stationed along the motorcade route, if he indeed drives instead of flies (still don't know which) and if they are reserve officers then obviously those are taxpayer dollars.  Whether the city bills the White House or not, those are taxpayer dollars.  It's either local taxes that pay the bill, or federal tax dollars.

Right, it's taxpayer dollars regardless of whether the white house foots the bill or local entities do. My point in citing the bills cities have presented to the white house was just to support the dollar values.

Quote:

I can't find the website now (I'll keep looking and post an edit to this if I can find it again) but I read on a police forum that because motorcades are so common in the D.C., they are always prepared for them at a moment's notice with additional manning already on the streets.  If this were the case, then I guess you can blame the President for ever driving anywhere, because it's costing the taxpayers dollars to employ additional full time cops in the D.C.  But that would mean golf has nothing to do with the overall cost, as well.

That last statement may be true in the D.C. area, but anywhere else he plays the motorcade cost would be an additional expenditure.

Quote:

I didn't mean to imply that most people who have turned against the government did so because of flyovers.  But here in west Phoenix, near Luke AFB, we hear a lot of complaints from people in the community who don't have an appreciation for the military.  They complain about flyovers.  They complain about the jet noise at the base (after they CHOSE to buy a house 2 miles from one of the largest Air Force bases in the world).  Maybe it's just their general attitude that's negative because of the economy and housing crisis, who knows, and maybe they're just taking it out on the military when they want to close the base, failing to acknowledge all the jobs and benefits that the base provides to the community.  I don't know.  I was just trying to make the point that one thing is certain:  there isn't a "bill" every time a jet flies.  There are expended items, like fuel, which have an associated cost, but that cost is negligible in budget standards.  It takes a little under $4,000 to fill the tank of an F-16 at current cost of JP-8.  Even if they used an entire tankful (which they don't) for a flyover, we're talking $4,000 per jet.  Considering the sacrifice made by the individual that they're putting into the ground, I think the money is well spent as it sends a message to family and friends that America appreciates that sacrifice.  You're right, most people probably haven't turned against the government because of flyovers, any more than they did so because of the President's golf game.

All good points.

[Mr. Desmond]

Gosh, wait until Mitt takes up an entire lake on his jet ski ...

Maybe he ought to take up golf...

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Good to know, thanks for elaborating. I'll concede that as long as none of the NAF facilities ever get money from anything other than user fees (i.e., nothing at all from the military budget), then taxpayers aren't on the hook.

Right, it's taxpayer dollars regardless of whether the white house foots the bill or local entities do. My point in citing the bills cities have presented to the white house was just to support the dollar values.

That last statement may be true in the D.C. area, but anywhere else he plays the motorcade cost would be an additional expenditure.

All good points.

There IS the cost of building the course, to begin with that taxpayers DO pay for.  And you could argue that Andrews has three courses instead of two because whenever a VIP visits they need to move golfers to another course, and that could feasibly cost taxpayers money to build that additional course.  Then again, it'd be kind of hard to put that into a "how much does it cost per round played by POTUS" argument.

I'm still anxious to hear from "reflection" again about where the number came from.  I did see something on a rather questionable blog that claimed it was $20,000 for the President and VP to play golf at Andrews per round, but again no source was given.  I'm a sources guy.  I like to know where the numbers are coming from.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

That last statement may be true in the D.C. area, but anywhere else he plays the motorcade cost would be an additional expenditure.

But as has been mentioned before, those extra costs will exist no matter what he does ... other than sit in the white house.  Anywhere he goes, no matter the activity, all of those associated costs are going to be there.

So it's silly to say it's "costing the taxpayers x amount of dollars for the President to play golf" because it's costing us x amount of dollars for him not to play golf too.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

That last statement may be true in the D.C. area, but anywhere else he plays the motorcade cost would be an additional expenditure.

But as has been mentioned before, those extra costs will exist no matter what he does ... other than sit in the white house.  Anywhere he goes, no matter the activity, all of those associated costs are going to be there.

So it's silly to say it's "costing the taxpayers x amount of dollars for the President to play golf" because it's costing us x amount of dollars for him not to play golf too.

I'll just repeat my response to that from earlier:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

...The point is, we as taxpayers have the right to question how our money is spent. Reasonable minds can disagree on how often we should foot the bill for activities that are purely for fun and relaxation. There's a difference between doing your job (e.g., visiting schools to talk about federal funds), and taking a break from it (e.g., golf).

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

I'll just repeat my response to that from earlier:

If corporate executives have taught us anything in relation to golf, it's that often a lot of business can be discussed during a game.  Let's not just assume that no business is conducted simply because he's not in the White House, or that he isn't still "working".  If he needs to meet with someone about something, I see no problem with any president holding that meeting at a golf course whether it's Romney or Obama.