Republicans take aim at cost of Obama’s trip to India. WRONG

[Farzad-USA]

Is President Obama's trip to India really going to cost $200 million a day?
That's the number making the rounds among the president's conservative critics, including potential 2012 Obama challenger [COLOR=#366388 !important][COLOR=#366388 !important]Mike [COLOR=#366388 !important]Huckabee[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] and U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), as the president takes off Friday for a 10-day trip to Asia.

Huckabee made the claim to Fox News on Tuesday night (citing "reports") and in the social media sphere. "Reports say that Obama's trip to Mumbai, India tomorrow will cost taxpayers $200 million dollars a day - come to think of it, that's much less than Obama's been spending here," Huckabee wrote in a Facebook message Tuesday night (misstating the day of [COLOR=#366388 !important][COLOR=#366388 !important]Obama's [COLOR=#366388 !important]departure[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR]). "So maybe it's not a bad thing he's leaving."

On Wednesday, Bachmann repeated the claim on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360." "Within a day or so the president of the United States will be taking a trip over to India that is expected to cost the taxpayers $200 million a day," Bachmann told Cooper. "He's taking 2,000 people with him. He'll be renting out over 870 rooms in India. And these are five-star hotel rooms at the Taj Mahal Palace hotel. This is the kind of over-the-top spending. It's a very small example, Anderson."

The only problem: The claims appear to be wrong.

The numbers evidently originate with the Press Trust of India, whose report was linked on the Drudge Report and picked up by [COLOR=#366388 !important][COLOR=#366388 !important]Fox [COLOR=#366388 !important]News [/COLOR][COLOR=#366388 !important]host [/COLOR][COLOR=#366388 !important]Glenn [/COLOR][COLOR=#366388 !important]Beck[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR]. The news agency also wrongly said that the White House had blocked off the entire Taj Mahal Palace hotel for Obama's visit and that the U.S. was stationing 34 warships—roughly 10 percent of the naval fleet--off the coast of Mumbai for security reasons.

The agency attributed the $200 million figure to an anonymous Indian government official. It didn't attribute the warships claim to any source.
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell called the warship claim "absolutely absurd." "That's just comical," he said at Thursday's Pentagon news briefing. "Nothing close to that is being done."

The White House, meanwhile, issued a [COLOR=#366388 !important][COLOR=#366388 !important]blanket [COLOR=#366388 !important]statement[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] that the $200 million figure "had no basis in reality" and was "wildly inflated." The press office declined to disclose the trip's actual cost, citing "security concerns."

In a news briefing Thursday, White House Press Secretary [COLOR=#366388 !important][COLOR=#366388 !important]Robert [COLOR=#366388 !important]Gibbs[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] also refused to release numbers, but he told reporters point-blank, "We are not spending $200 million a day."

The nonpartisan FactCheck.org took up the issue, too, saying that even though the administration won't release a price tag, there is "simply no evidence to support" a claim of $200 million a day. One reason to doubt the report, according to the group: The entire war in Afghanistan costs $190 million a day.

That is not to say that some of the precautions for Obama's first presidential visit to India aren't possibly a tad over the top. As the BBC reports, Indian officials have been removing coconuts from any trees that Obama might walk under, to prevent anything from falling on the presidential head. And as London's Daily Telegraph notes, the country has deployed trained monkey catchers to prevent any "simian invasion" (a measure that Indian officials also took when [COLOR=#366388 !important][COLOR=#366388 !important]President [COLOR=#366388 !important]Bush[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] visited in 2006).

 

[masoudA]

So - How much does it cost per day? and how many people are going? and why?

:exercise:

 

[Farzad-USA]

http://factcheck.org/2010/11/ask-factcheck-trip-to-mumbai/

Q: Is President Obama’s trip to India going to cost $200 million per day?

A: This highly doubtful claim originated with one Indian news agency quoting an anonymous source in Mumbai. The White House says it is "wildly exaggerated," and there’s no evidence to support such a huge figure.

FULL QUESTION

There are reports all over that Obama’s India trip will cost $200 million per day. I haven’t been able to find a credible rebuttal to this but I can’t believe it could be true.


FULL ANSWER
This story has spread rapidly among the president’s critics, but there is simply no evidence to support it. And common sense should lead anyone to doubt it. For example, the entire U.S. war effort in Afghanistan currently costs less than that — about $5.7 billion per month, according to the Congressional Research Service, or roughly $190 million per day. How could a peaceful state visit cost more than a war?

What else can you get for $200 million? Try the New Jersey Nets basketball team or possibly the Hope diamond — if only the Smithsonian were selling it.

The hard-to-swallow claim originated with a Nov. 2 Press Trust of India article quoting an unnamed "top official" in the government of Maharashtra (one of India’s states). The source was quoted as saying that Obama’s upcoming trip to Mumbai will cost $200 million per day for security and living arrangements, among other things. The story claimed that the president would be accompanied by about 3,000 people, including Secret Service agents, government officials and journalists, and will stay at the Taj Mahal Hotel — the scene of a 2008 terrorist attack.

We find stories based on anonymous sources always deserve special caution, especially when they come from only one news organization. In this case, the anonymous official is not even in the U.S. government, and any information about costs would necessarily have come second-hand at best, an added reason for caution.

Nevertheless, the story was widely repeated without any additional reporting. Soon after the article was released, The Drudge Report — a news aggregation website — linked to the Press Trust of India article, with the headline "REPORT: US to spend $200 million per day on Obama’s Mumbai visit…" Later that day, Rush Limbaugh claimed on his radio show that "Five hundred seven rooms at the Taj Mahal, 40 airplanes, $200 million a day this nation will spend on Obama’s trip to India." He repeats the "$200 million a day" claim several times throughout the show without specifying its source.

The allegation has generated a great deal of Internet discourse over the past few days, including a Washington Times post that claims Obama’s entourage on the trip "will spend enough to bankrupt a small nation." According to the Economic Times and The Daily Mail, Obama will take over the entire 570-room Taj Mahal Hotel for the trip. A Google search for the exact words of the original Press Trust article returned about 11,000 results. And we received about two dozen queries about it.
The White House is always reluctant to discuss cost figures about presidential trips, since the bulk of the expense is for Secret Service security. Not this time. The White House press office, which said it had been flooded with queries, gave us the following statement:

Matt Lehrich, White House Office of Media Affairs: The numbers reported in this article have no basis in reality. Due to security concerns, we are unable to outline details associated with security procedures and costs, but it’s safe to say these numbers are wildly inflated.
​

It is always costly to move a U.S. president around the world. And in this case, the president is attending a G-20 meeting and will be accompanied by several cabinet officials. But given the dubious source of this assertion, the fact that the claimed cost exceeds the cost of a war, the flat denial by the White House and the lack of any evidence to support the claim, we’ll classify this one as false.

–Lara Seligman
Update, Nov. 4: Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota repeated the claim Nov. 3 on CNN’s "Anderson Cooper 360," attacking Obama for "over-the-top spending." When Cooper countered that "no one really knows the cost, because for security reasons they don’t disclose the cost," Bachmann responded, “Well these are the numbers that have been coming out in the press."

On Nov. 4, Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell called the story "absolutely absurd," because it had claimed that the U.S. Navy was sending 34 warships to the coast off Mumbai as part of the president’s visit:

Morrell, Nov. 4: I will take the liberty this time of dismissing as absolutely absurd this notion that somehow we were deploying 10 percent of the Navy — some 34 ships and an aircraft carrier — in support of the president’s trip to Asia. … That’s just comical. Nothing close to that is being done.
​

ABC News reported that 34 ships would actually amount to nearly 12 percent of the 288 in the Navy’s fleet, not 10 percent.
Later the same day, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said during his regular press briefing that the $200 million per day estimate is incorrect.

Gibbs, Nov 4: Well, we have set the record straight with you guys. I’m not going to go into how much it costs to protect the president. Costs are comparable to when President Clinton and when President Bush traveled abroad.
​

So how much did those trips cost? In the case of some Clinton trips, we have figures from a 1999 report by the U.S. General Accounting Office — now called the Government Accountability Office. The GAO said that Clinton’s trips to Africa, Chile and China in 1998 cost at least $42.8 million, $10.5 million and $18.8 million, respectively — not counting the still-classified cost of providing Secret Service protection.

In Africa, Clinton was accompanied by about 1,300 individuals — not including members of the Secret Service — representing the White House, the Department of Defense and other federal agencies. The president visited six countries in 12 days, which means the trip cost $3.6 million per day.

Clinton made the five-day Chile trip in order to attend the second Summit of the Americas — a meeting of 34 heads of state or governments from countries in the Americas — and to hold meetings with the president of Chile. About 600 individuals accompanied the president on the trip, which we calculated would have cost $2.1 million per day.

When Clinton visited China to conduct talks with the president of China, he brought along about 500 individuals. The trip lasted nine days, which works out to a little less than $2.1 million per day.

The total cost including Secret Service protection would of course be somewhat higher, but even doubling or tripling those figures and adding in an adjustment for inflation would not produce anything close to the figure given by the Indian news article for Obama’s trip.

 

[Farsi Zaban]

So - How much does it cost per day? and how many people are going? and why?

:exercise:

It costs $200 Million PER day. Our communist Muslin leader is deploying all of our naval forces to India from what I heard.

 

[ChaharMahal]

Anderson cooper
debunks the myth.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/05/anderson-cooper-slams-con_n_779557.html

 

[Natural]

Beck: Obama's trip is costing 2 Billion dollars to see the festival of lights in India, why does the president need 34 warships..

Listen:

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201011040011

Beck opens show with false story about "lavish" Obama trip to India

Watch:

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201011040033

 

[masoudA]

So - How much does it cost per day? and how many people are going? and why?

:exercise:

 

[Natural]

So - How much does it cost per day? and how many people are going? and why?

:exercise:

for you, 200 million a day, with 34 warships... that should fit your narrative.. close your eyes and ears because you know all you need to know...


for everyone else, the pentagon press secretary said today:

"I will take the liberty this time of dismissing as absolutely absurd this notion that somehow we were deploying 10% of the Navy -- some 34 ships and an aircraft carrier -- in support of the president's trip to Asia," Morrell said.

He said the cost of the trip was also overblown. He would not divulge how much was being spent, due to security concerns but insisted it was similar to those of previous presidents.

 

[beystr 2.0]

I'd assume..there r a lot of business people that r going with him there...what's wrong with that..? thats exactly what Gov. should be doing to support and promote their industries..everybody else does it...

 

[ChaharMahal]

despite hating the myth.

I am not too pleased obama going there to bat on behalf of walmart to open super stores in india.

 

[masoudA]

finally - some sanity

 

[Motori]

Jeez krist.

If you want to pick on Obama you need to find a better material.

First of all the cost for presidential trip has never been and will never be calculated by W.H, USSS, DoD and USAF do that and they seldom make the numbers public, and no! POTUS never pockets any of that money.

Also it is not just a trip to India, beside India in which he will give a speech to the Indian parliament, a state dinner and a homage at the grave of Indian independence leader Mahatma Gandhi., also it will be Indonesia, South Korea and Japan encompasses a G-20 summit, an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, major holidays in India and Indonesia, and bilateral talks with Chinese President Hu Jintao and at least five other leaders, as well as four presidential news conferences.

All nations above and the rest in the world are and will not be willing to provide the entire aspect of security and transportation for any US president, some thing happens and the host nation will be in a very deep soft substance. They are very comfortable with POTUS bringing his own security and transportation apparatus.

 

[Iranpaak]

despite hating the myth.

I am not too pleased obama going there to bat on behalf of walmart to open super stores in india.

Yeah, I am sure the trip is simply for the benefit of Walmart and has nothing to do with the fact that India is second most popuolous country on earth, a dynamic emerging market, and strategic and political power.

 

[ChaharMahal]

Yeah, I am sure the trip is simply for the benefit of Walmart and has nothing to do with the fact that India is second most popuolous country on earth, a dynamic emerging market, and strategic and political power.

I did not mean to give the impression that I think this is what he is trying to do.

but to be fair most of the his short term goals are to try to sell weapons.
try to open india to large U.S multi nationals.

obviously long term goal is to have a good relationship with india even though U.S is giving Aid To Pakistan and try to support a mini counter balance to china in the region.

I support the trip. but I was not too pleased about what I heard on NPR today about a direct push for walmart (perhaps wholefoods,target,cosco). (I am sure he won't spend more than an hour on the matter but just did not like it as "progressive")

 

[Silverton]

Problem with Republicans is that they are a bunch of liars, problem with Democrats is that they have no balls.

 

[tajrish]

Such pity that a congresswoman should base her info on news coming from a third-rated, semi-official Indian news agency and make claims without checking the facts. Then again, why would anyone expect anything else from this bitch?

Masoud jan, frankly, I don't doubt your intelligence and you know that I really like you as a person but I am puzzled on your political stance, specifically when it comes to the Tea Bagging movement. What is it you see in these idiots?

As Bill Maher put it so correctly: Why are all the loonies on the GOP side?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhKSMyI2KWc"]YouTube - Hardball: Bill Maher on Bachmann and Palin[/ame]

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/bill...and-michele-bachmann-milfs-video-2605576.html

 

[masoudA]

Tajrish jaan - the feeling is mutual
I don't know what has happened to you guys in CA!!! must be under constant liberal bombardment. Common man - why not just focusing on the subject instead of Fox or ABC........the subject is that Obama is taking a long trip overseas......I was hoping an intelligent older meber like you would take the converstation towards where he is going and why? India is just one stop - he is also going to Indonesia visting apparantly one of the world's biggest mosques I hear (Natural - please spare me facts about the actual size of the mosque..). I don't care if he has 3000 entourage or 2,000 or 200 - I hear it is large. But even a large entourage can be justified depending the business at hand. I also hear he is trying to sell India airplanes and other military shit - is that a good thing? does he need to be there for sales pitch? Let's not forget he is going to be staying in a hotel that no too long ago was successfuly attacked by terrorists in a country where the police is not in full control... Where else is he going - and why? Japan and S. Korea are also in line.....Some day soon - Californians like you will recognize what is taking place in the rest of USA - I have no doubt.

PS - I love Bill Mahr - but common man - don't make philosophers out of jokers and comedians.

 

[beystr 2.0]

Masoud jon...Don't be devistaded..but ..word is..he might be comin' in baraye dast boosi AghA...Obama is also said to be curious as to what the hell is a Jam karAn...lol...

 

[masoudA]

amoo bey - I am realy interested to know if US President is still reaching out to the moslems.......apparantly he still does not distinguish between Moslems and Moslem Extrimists - he has yet to figure out the real enemy and the fact that just like in Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan..... Moslems are the biggest victims of extremists.

loool at jamkaran -

 

[IPride]

I did not mean to give the impression that I think this is what he is trying to do.

but to be fair most of the his short term goals are to try to sell weapons.
try to open india to large U.S multi nationals.

obviously long term goal is to have a good relationship with india even though U.S is giving Aid To Pakistan and try to support a mini counter balance to china in the region.

I support the trip. but I was not too pleased about what I heard on NPR today about a direct push for walmart (perhaps wholefoods,target,cosco). (I am sure he won't spend more than an hour on the matter but just did not like it as "progressive")

What is wrong with India having the presence of large multinationals?
I mean if Indians really hate having walmart there they can go to the next store.. Who are we to decide what Indians should get?