In his increasingly desperate attempts to pander to a population that has by now entirely given up on the hope, and barely has any change left, Obama is going for broke (or technically the reverse) by setting the class warfare bar just that little bit higher.

This time around, his targets are millionaires, who according to the NYT are about to see their taxes soar. Or not: nobody really knows if the proposed “Buffett Rule”, affectionately known for crony communist #1, will impact just millionaires income tax, which incidentally is the same as what everyone else is paying, or, far more importantly, their Investment Income, which is where the bulk of America’s wealthy income comes from.

Which incidentally makes all the sense in the world: two and a half years after Bernanke has been desperately doing everything in his power to raise the “wealth effect” if only for the richest 1% of the US population, it is, from the government’s perspective, time for the taxman to come knocking and demand his share of the capital gains.

Yet what is lost in this ridiculous proposal are the unintended consequences, which always follow idiotic decisions arising out of central planning, number one of which would be a market crash as those who have paper gains since the market lows of 2009, scramble to lock in the old capital gains tax rate of 15% instead of holding on to paper profits that could end up being as high as 35% (or more): an event that would cut actual income by over 25% should one wait to cash out! And since 25% is substantially more than anything that Twist and QE3 and 4 could hope to achieve, it is all too conceivable that those holding on to profitable positions will have had enough, and take their profits, likely converting them into physical and non-dilutable assets along the way. As to whether they would subsequently relocate to far more hospitable countries, such as those that don’t foment class warfare, and implicitly invite a civil war, that remains yet to be seen.

In the meantime, here is how Obama just made sure his already record low rating is about to plumb depths unseen since the time of Jimmy Carter, via the NYT:

President Obama on Monday will call for a new minimum tax rate for individuals making more than $1 million a year to ensure that they pay at least the same percentage of their earnings as middle-income taxpayers, according to administration officials.

With a special joint Congressional committee starting work to reach a bipartisan budget deal by late November, the proposal adds a new and populist feature to Mr. Obama’s effort to raise the political pressure on Republicans to agree to higher revenues from the wealthy in return for Democrats’ support of future cuts from Medicare and Medicaid.

Mr. Obama, in a bit of political salesmanship, will call his proposal the “Buffett Rule,” in a reference to Warren E. Buffett, the billionaire investor who has complained repeatedly that the richest Americans generally pay a smaller share of their income in federal taxes than do middle-income workers, because investment gains are taxed at a lower rate than wages.

Mr. Obama will not specify a rate or other details, and it is unclear how much revenue his plan would raise. But his idea of a millionaires’ minimum tax will be prominent in the broad plan for long-term deficit reduction that he will outline at the White House on Monday.

In other words, another typical Obama ploy: let the details be ironed out in the future, but for now we just want to accentuate the class animosity. After all, it is all too obvious that those millionaires, like Buffett, who so desperately want to show their patriotism for America, are in no way aware that the Treasury has this thing called Pay.gov which allows such uber-patriots to whip out their credit cards and pay down America’s record debt, in essence voluntarily doing what Obama plans to enforce for everyone else. We are certain that Mr. Buffett will promptly demonstrate to the public his receipt from precisely such a patriotic transaction.

As for the proposal, to say that it is doomed would be optimistic:

The Obama proposal has little chance of becoming law unless Republican lawmakers bend. But by focusing on the wealthiest Americans, the president is sharpening the contrast between Republicans and Democrats with a theme he can carry into his bid for re-election in 2012.

It could also reassure Democrats who have feared that Mr. Obama would agree to changes in programs like Medicare without forcing Republicans to compromise on taxes.

The administration wants such a tax to replace the alternative minimum tax, which was created decades ago to make sure the richest taxpayers with plentiful deductions and credits did not avoid income taxes, but which now hits millions of Americans who are considered upper middle class.

Mr. Obama has said that many average Americans could see a tax cut if the system is overhauled, since ending many tax breaks would allow for lower rates while raising more revenues from the wealthiest.

The millionaires’ tax is among several changes Mr. Obama will propose in urging Congress to overhaul the federal income tax code next year, both to raise revenues for reducing deficits and to make the tax system simpler and fairer, said the administration officials, who agreed to speak in advance of the president’s announcement on the condition of anonymity.

The millionaires’ rate would affect only 0.3 percent of taxpayers, they said. That would be fewer than 450,000; 144 million returns were filed for 2010.

That’s wonderful: in other words it is very few of the people who, mostly through years of hard work, have succeeded in breaking through the vaunted 7 digit net worth figure. But the good news is that Buffett, instead of focusing on his own share of philantropy, believes that it is his centrally planned duty to enforce his strict lack of moral code on everyone else. Too bad the other millionaires do not have the billions necessary to become one with the TBTFs and know that whatever they put their money in, Uncle Sam will never let it blow up.

If Obama wants to enact a Buffett Rule, how about instead of addressing taxes, said rule makes it clear that capitalism is coming back to replace the crony communist regime we have all grown to love and enjoy for the past 3 years, and individual failure is once again an option, instead of the socialist risk phenomenon that Buffett, more than any one individual America has grown to symbolize and represent?

Furthermore, when the $1MM cutoff fails, which it inevitably will (the rich are rich for a reason: they tend to be, for the most part, quite adept at finding loopholes), and those targeted promptly “offshore” themselves, what will Obama’s next “rich” cutoff be: $500,000? $100,000? $25,000? Those on Earned Income Tax Credit? Sooner or later, you know Obama is coming for you.

Lastly, and presumably comically, considering that 41.2% of the “middle class” pays no income taxes, we wonder if this is not just a ploy by a wily Buffett, who knows the loophole in the tax code better than anyone, to make sure that nearly half of all millionaires pay… absolutely nothing.

President Barack Obama invited ESPN into the White House yesterday so that The Worldwide Leader In Sports could tape his picks for the 2011 NCAA basketball tournament. The President picked all frontrunners. Good for him. Meanwhile, 5,000 miles away, a Libyan rebel defending the town of Ajdabiya from Muammar Qadhafi loyalists told The Washington Post: “These politicians are liars. They just talk and talk, but they do nothing.” One hundred miles north, in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, rebel spokeswoman Iman Bugaighis told The New York Times that Western nations had “lost any credibility.”

President Obama cannot be blamed for the failure of the rebels to hold off advances by Qadhafi’s army. But he can be blamed for raising expectations for U.S. military action beyond what he was prepared to commit. On March 3, President Obama said: “With respect to our willingness to engage militarily, … I’ve instructed the Department of Defense … to examine a full range of options. I don’t want us hamstrung. … Going forward, we will continue to send a clear message: The violence must stop. Muammar Gaddafi has lost legitimacy to lead, and he must leave.” Heritage Vice President for Foreign and Defense Policy Studies Kim Holmes writes: “This is the worst of all worlds. People in the Middle East (not to mention Americans) are rightly confused by the mismatch between the Administration’s rhetoric and actions.”

The tragedy unfolding in Libya is just another example of why the Obama Doctrine was destined to fail. The Obama Doctrine is ill-suited to dealing with the world as it is. It assumes that big problems can be solved with big words while the messy details take care of themselves. It places far too much confidence in international entities, disregards for the importance of American independence, and fails to emphasize American exceptionalism.

Diplomacy is fundamental to the conduct of American foreign policy. That is why the Founders removed the conduct of diplomacy from the states of the Union and placed its practice under the President of the United States. But the Obama Doctrine misunderstands how diplomacy ought to be practiced. Heritage Senior Research Fellow Ted Bromund explains:

The purpose of American diplomacy never changes: It is to secure the national interests of the United States. … Irresponsible diplomacy comes in many forms. Diplomacy without strength does not even merit the name of diplomacy. Treaties that fail to respect President Ronald Reagan’s dictum of ‘trust, but verify’ are reckless. Treaties that are negotiated merely to encourage foreigners to think better of the United States are unwise.

Far too often, President Obama has hoped that fancy words, grand apologies, and supplicant treaties would strengthen our security by making the world think better of us. They do not. This does not mean that the Obama Administration should do something rash, like implement a no-fly zone in Libya, just so it looks like it is doing something. It does mean that to save his presidency and protect the interests of the nation, business as usual in the White House has got to stop.

To receive the Morning Bell daily, click here.

Quick Hits:

• A deeply divided House of Representatives agreed Tuesday to provide enough money to keep the government open for three more weeks.
• Illinois still can’t figure out how to make its 45 percent underfunded pension plan solvent.
• According to Gallup, Americans, by a 50–41 percent margin, say the nation should prioritize the development of energy supplies over protecting the environment.
• The TARP Congressional Oversight Panel concluded today that the program virtually guarantees future taxpayer-funded bailouts.
• Is America ready for an earthquake-tsunami disaster? Review Heritage’s Disaster Preparedness researchhere.

 

President Obama calls Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s proposal to curtail the collective-bargaining rights of state employees an “assault.” But the real assault is the conspiracy that has existed for decades between elected officials and public-employee unions — and taxpayers are the ones who wind up battered.

The unions get salaries, health benefits, and pensions far in excess of what the average taxpayer in the private sector earns. In exchange, the unions contribute huge amounts of money to the elected officials who agreed to these outrageous and fiscally bankrupting perks.

This history shows the unresolvable conflict of interest that exists between being a government employee and the member of a union. In fact, as Heritage analyst James Sherk explains, the only way for Wisconsin and other states to have responsible, fiscally sound government is to restore voters’ control over their government and to depoliticize the civil service.

Unions have no “right” to bargain with the taxpayers over tax and spending decisions. There are no profits in government for unions to negotiate over.

In fact, unions are unneeded in the public sector. Government workers in Wisconsin are covered by some of the strictest civil service rules in the country. These rules, similar to those that protect federal workers, make it almost impossible to fire even incompetent employees. They enjoy far greater protections and job security than anyone in private employment.

 

Today, President Barack Obama concluded, and Attorney General Eric Holder announced, that the administration will not defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  DOMA defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the purposes of federal law, and clarifies that no state has to recognize a homosexual marriage from another state.  The President’s announcement is refreshing in its honesty, at least insofar as it drops the farce that the administration has been offering anything even remotely approaching a vigorous (and professional) defense of the federal statute.

On this count, even supporters of gay marriage have acknowledged that the Justice Department’s non-defense of DOMA to date has bordered on creating collusive litigation, and concluded that the “DOJ’s faint-hearted advocacy is no way to run a legal system.”  So, notwithstanding the President’s desire to undermine DOMA, his non-enforcement may actually bolster its prospect in the courts: by getting out of the way, the Justice Department will make way for competent and vigorous legal defense of the statute.

But the President’s decision is nonetheless a serious one.  While the President has a duty to interpret the Constitution through his decisions to enforce statutes, it is the well-established  policy of the Justice Department to defend a federal statute unless no reasonable argument may be made in its defense, or unless the statute would infringe on some core presidential constitutional authority (that is, the President doesn’t need to vigorously defend a federal statute that he believes infringes on his Article II power).  Applying this policy, the Executive Branch has traditionally defended federal statutes vigorously, even in cases where it had strong constitutional doubts, and where it had strong policy reservations.

For example, in his signing statement for the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, President Bush expressed his view that certain provisions of the act were likely unconstitutional.  Yet, the President and his Justice Department, through Solicitor General Ted Olson, vigorously defended the entire bill, including those constitutionally deficient provisions.   Olson succeeded in his defense, although he successfully attacked provisions of the same bill as unconstitutional after he left the Justice Department.

There are reasonable legal arguments to be made in defense of DOMA.  The Justice Department’s failure to make them to date, and the President’s abandonment of the case, appear to be judgments made not based on a determination of the availability of reasonable legal arguments, but based upon the policy preferences of the President.  That has never been the standard used by the Justice Department or any prior administration.

The President is now required by federal law (28 U.S.C. § 530D) to file a report to Congress within 30 days explaining the decision not to defend the law, “including a complete and detailed statement of the reasons for the policy or determination . . . .”  The courts of appeals will need to appoint counsel to defend the law.

Members of Congress, consistent with the law of standing, should seek to intervene in the case or file amicus briefs to assure that DOMA gets the vigorous defense that should be afforded to all federal statutes for which reasonable legal arguments may be offered – and which the President is refusing to provide.  Furthermore, the court should give special consideration to such intervening or amicus briefs as statements of the federal government in support of a statute, given the complete failure of the President to carry out his constitutional duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

 

President Barack Obama’s budget plan would cut $100 billion from Pell Grants and other higher education programs over a decade through belt-tightening and use the savings to keep the maximum college financial aid award at $5,550, an administration official said.

Nearly $90 billion of the projected savings would be achieved through two changes, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity ahead of Monday’s release of Obama’s 2012 budget. The spending plan applies to the budget year that begins Oct. 1.

Congress would have to approve both changes.

The first proposal would end the “year-round Pell” policy that let students collect two grants in a calendar year, with the second grant used for summer school. The official said the costs exceeded expectations and there was little evidence that students earn their degrees any faster.

The change would save $8 billion next year and $60 billion over a decade, the official said.

A second proposal would reduce loan subsidies for graduate and professional students. That would free $2 billion next year and save $29 billion over 10 years, according to the official.

The government currently pays the interest on student loans for some graduate and professional students as long as they stay in college. But the official said experts think the subsidy has failed to encourage more students to attend graduate school and it isn’t well-matched to borrowers who have trouble repaying the loans.

The administration also has expanded other programs that help students reduce loan payments and ultimately forgive debt they can no longer afford to repay.

Another $4 billion in savings over 10 years would be achieved by broadening the use of IRS data to determine eligibility, reducing improper payments and easing the application process, the official said.

Faced with growing annual budget deficits and a national debt into the trillions of dollars, Obama has said his latest budget proposal would save $400 billion over the next decade, including through a five-year freeze on some discretionary spending and cuts to programs that he says even he cares about.

But at the same time, Obama wants to increase spending in areas he says are priorities, such as education and innovation, which he says are important for long-term economic growth and competitiveness.

“It would be a mistake to balance the budget by sacrificing our children’s education,” he said Saturday in his weekly radio and Internet address, in an apparent warning to Republicans.

House Republicans want to cut $100 billion from the budget proposal Obama submitted for 2011 and education and college financial aid are expected to take a hit.

Congress, then controlled by Democrats, did not pass a budget for 2011.

Pell Grants are the main federal college financial aid program for the poor. More than 9 million students receive these grants every year, according to the White House, and Obama increased the maximum award to $5,550. The money does not have to be repaid.

The administration is projecting a shortfall of more than $20 billion in the program for the 2012. Without action, officials say, the maximum award would have to be cut by more than $2,500 to meet demand.

Demand increased sharply since the economic slump because more job seekers are going to school to learn new skills and they need help paying the tuition, the administration official said.

There is no point in pining for “another Ronald Reagan.” Great leaders don’t come along very often, and in many ways Reagan was an American original. … [W]e don’t need another Reagan. Rather, we simply need to ask in every situation that arises, What would Reagan have done?– Dinesh D’Souza, in “Ronald Reagan,” a biography

Prologue

This month marks the centennial birth year of President Ronald Reagan, the founding father of modern political conservatism who against all odds and by the sheer power of his ideas, personality and vision pulled America from the malaise, stagflation and the servile posture of the Carter administration to the lofty heights of what he envisioned America’s destiny to be – a shining city on a hill.

In 1988, Reagan’s vision to rescue America’s greatness compelled me to become a conservative Republican as a young graduate student studying history and law at Harvard during the same time Barack Obama was there, although I have no distinct memory of the man.

I’m certain most of you reading this column have been profoundly touched by Reagan’s conservatism, which was both organic and authentic. He often would say, “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me.” Over half of his life was spent being our John the Baptist, a clarion voice of reason, freedom, truth and constitutionalism piercing the cacophony of Social Darwinism, progressivism, welfare statism and moral relativism to show America that truly there was better way.

Reagan & Christ

In this respect I believe Reagan’s life and legacy to be similar to Jesus Christ. No, Reagan wasn’t perfect: He signed a pro-abortion bill as governor of California; as president Reagan raised taxes, committed deficit spending, gave amnesty to illegal aliens, made horrible foreign policy moves in Nicaragua and Lebanon and allowed his wife, Nancy, to wield secret powers way above her pay grade.

Yet, Reagan seized the mandate to reclaim America’s greatness, to return our politics from the slave chains of FDR’s New Deal, LBJ’s Great Society and Obama’s New Deal Part 2: policies he saw as fool’s gold and America’s Faustian bargain with the devil. No, no, no – Reagan would have none of this utopian socialism and in a 1964 speech, “A Time for Choosing,” boldly proclaimed,Outside of its legitimate function, government does nothing better than the private sector.

Reagan stood for the rule of law, constitutionalism and in the explicit, black-letter limitations of congressional power found in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Adherence to those specific enumerated powers the constitutional framers gave to Congress would have prevented or abrogated all of the universal problems America faces during the Age of Obama:

• $15 trillion debt, $5 trillion deficit; 84 percent of our budget goes towards Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and defense and is removed from budgetary consideration;
• China is about to eclipse America as the dominant political, economic and military superpower and owns much of our debt;
• The European Union has shackled once-great European nations with the servile chains of socialism and Keynesianism where if one nation’s economy falls (Spain, Greece, Portugal, Ireland), then all will eventually fall;
• When Egypt becomes the Iran of the Middle East, to survive, Israel will be forced to retake the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza, setting the stage for Armageddon;
• Feckless politicians bribing the people with their own money, public schools failing on purpose, bombed-out cities, rampant crime, abortion, genocide at the Mexican border and a rising American zeitgeist of hopelessness.

Although Reagan lived in different times, the eternal solutions are found in what he did, the transcendent ideas he believed in – God, American exceptionalism, Natural Law, truth and freedom to pursue happiness without government permission or control.

In an article reporting on Newt Gingrich marking Reagan’s centenary, the writer noted:

“Gingrich said Reagan’s presidency was unique in that he set his mind on three goals – bringing an end to communism, revitalizing the American economy by reducing the size of government and reducing taxes, and re-establishing the idea of American exceptionalism. He pursued them relentlessly, making a commitment to forming a plan and seeing it through, something Gingrich said is lacking in modern American politics.”

What happened to our national psyche? Did America have a communal lobotomy? How could Reagan win 44 states in 1980 and 49 states in 1984, yet Americans elected such anti-Reagan figures as Bush-41, Clinton, Bush-43 and Obama? All these men loved Reagan’s charisma and popularity yet feared and hated his conservative policies. Even Bush-43′s speechwriter Matt Latimer said Bush told him as late at 2008, “There is no [conservative] movement!” and forced Latimer to remove all such rhetoric from his speech.

To effect true change to those gargantuan problems highlighted above Reagan would tell our leaders to follow the same three simple principles he campaigned on and accomplished during his two terms as president – defeat communism (including socialism and fascism), revitalize the American economy by reducing taxes and the size of government and re-establish the idea of American exceptionalism.

Epilogue

Being despised and rejected with a smile and optimism was one character trait Reagan had that most politicians and power brokers can never identify with because they are duplicitous, excessively ambitious and demand respect. Reagan repeatedly used humility together with his unshakeable faith in God, truth and American exceptionalism to overcome seemingly impossible odds all his life. He led a rich and fruitful life, yet just behind that wonderful smile and just behind those piercing sparkling eyes was a profound lachrymose sadness that shrouded the man. Even so, he smiled, shook every hand and sacrificed his all for America.

Christ did not attend the rabbinical schools of his day, and Reagan did not graduate from Ivy League schools like most U.S. presidents. Reagan, like Christ was a suffering servant, the despised and forgotten (political) prophet. Both men endured constant humiliation, contempt and perversion of their ideas to this day as many antichrists and antireagans abound – yet both are ultimately vindicated because they loved the truth and gave love, liberty and truth to the world.

Last month, after the governor-elects of Ohio and Wisconsin (John Kasich and Scott Walker respectively) each declined to waste any more taxpayer money on high-speed rail boondoggles, the Obama administration quickly announced they would take federal transportation dollars away from those states and give them to California’s high-speed rail project. As we noted at the time, even Californian Democratic lawmakers have dubbed the California project a Super Train to Nowhere. Finally, The Washington Post is also taking notice:

Given that California’s system has attracted zero private capital and has been unable to guarantee any source – governmental or private – for almost half the cost of completion, the obvious risk is that the federal taxpayer will be on the hook for billions of dollars worth of railroad track that may never serve its intended high-speed purpose. But the Obama administration sought the funds, as part of the 2009 stimulus package, and Congress approved them – and so they must be spent. … At the very least, California should have to fill in its project’s economic and logistical blanks before any more money – from state taxpayers or the rest of us – is spent. Unfortunately, the rule right now seems to be spend first, answer questions later.

The Heritage Foundation’s Ron Utt details the scope of Obama’s impending high-speed fiscal disaster:

As the preceding analysis reveals, the potential for serious financial problems with an HSR program include:

* Perpetual massive government subsidies and larger budget deficits;
* Wasted money because few passengers will use the system even with the high per-passenger subsidies for operating and capital costs;
* Service provided to only a small fraction of the traveling public in a handful of communities;
* Additional burdens imposed on hard-pressed state governments, which will be required to match the perpetual federal subsidies to build the system;
* Little or no difference in passenger mobility or environmental quality; and
* The creation of high-paying, low-productivity union jobs for political supporters.

While these deficiencies make the HSR program a winner for some of the President’s supporters and some Members of Congress, it will be a major loser for the taxpayers who will be forced to fund this new system.

Nancy Pelosi’s final days as Speaker of the House were spent at the exotic Four Seasons Resort Hualalai at Historic Ka’upulehu in Kona on the island of Hawaii.

Escorted throughout her trip by a mini security motorcade that included Secret Service and Hawaii County Police officers, Pelosi was seen at St. Michael’s Catholic Church in Kailua-Kona, where she received Communion. Parishioners greeted her warmly, Hawaii Reporter was told. Two police SUVs were on guard outside the hotel during her week long stay.

Pelosi, who traveled to Hawaii by private plane, spent the holidays in Kona last year at the same hotel in an elaborate suite that reportedly rents for $10,000 a night.

The Four Seasons Resort Hualalai’s details its luxurious setting and amenities on its web site: “Gloriously revitalised, this natural tropical paradise offers more than ever to explore – with a newly expanded Spa, beachfront dining, fashion boutiques and new Deluxe Suites, in addition to Jack Nicklaus signature golf. Set on the Big Island’s exclusive Kona-Kohala Coast, this showpiece resort captures the essence of Hawaiian design, culture and tradition.”

Pelosi has her share of allies in Hawaii, including Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie, who she defended during his successful campaign for governor in 2010. Pelosi, a Democrat who will be replaced as House Speaker by GOP Congressman John Boehner in a matter of days, served in Congress with Abercrombie. When Democratic Gubernatorial Candidate Mufi Hannemann claimed during the primary that Abercrombie was not effective in Congress, Pelosi issued a statement calling Abercrombie “outstanding, effective and courageous.”

Hawaii Reporter has requested information from the Police on taxpayers’ costs to guard her. Last year, Hawaii county taxpayers paid more than $21,000.

This year, the county estimates have not yet been provided to Hawaii Reporter; the request is pending. However, the Hawaii Police Department does not release the number of police officers escorting Pelosi, how many hours they dedicated to Pelosi’s security detail, or whether they were being pulled from other duties. No figures could be obtained for her Secret Service escorts.

Her trip coincides with President Barack Obama’s nearly two-week family vacation in Hawaii.

Obama’s trip to Oahu has proved much pricier to state and federal taxpayers.

In a Hawaii Reporter story published last week, some of the cost estimates included:

• Obama’s round trip flight to Hawaii via Air Force One: $1 million (GAO estimates)
• Mrs. Obama’s early flight to Hawaii: $63,000 (White House Dossier)
• Housing in beachfront homes for Secret Service and Seals in Kailua ($1,200 a day for 14 days): $16,800
• Costs for White House staff staying at Moana Hotel: $134,400 ($400 per day for 24 staff) – excluding meals and other room costs
• Local police overtime: $250,000 (2009 costs reported by Honolulu Police Department)
• Ambulance: $10,000 (City Spokesperson)
• TOTAL COST: $1,474,200

UNKNOWN COSTS

• Rental of office building in Kailua on canal
• Security upgrades and additional phone lines to private homes where Obama and friends are staying
• Costs for car rentals and fuel for White House staff staying at Moana Hotel
• Surveillance before the President arrives
• Travel costs for Secret Service and White House staff traveling ahead of the President

Since the Obama holiday story appeared in Hawaii Reporter, readers on the island of Hawaii point to another plane similar to Air Force One (except with a communications dome atop it) that accompanied the President to Hawaii, is at the Hilo Airport.

In addition, costs should have been added for the USAF C-17 cargo aircraft that transported the Presidential limos, helicopters and other support equipment. The flight time between Andrews Air Force Base and Hawaii is at about 20 hours roundtrip, with estimated operating cost of $7,000 per hour (GAO report) for a total of $140,000 per roundtrip. Sources say the United States Marine Corps provides a presidential helicopter, along with pilots and support crews for the test flights, which travel on another C-17 flight at $140,000 for a total of $280,000.

Hawaii Reporter has requested details on the cost of the President’s trip, but the White House will not release any figures, citing security concerns. A spokesperson maintains the costs are in line with other presidential vacations.

Hawaii Reporter has sought to determine the cost of vacations for the current president and last two presidents but it has not received any reply from four emails sent over the last week to the U.S. General Services Administration, the agency that tracks these costs.

Barack Obama’s family holiday in Hawaii is reportedly costing at least $1.5 million (£1 million) as mainland America is battered by storms.

The calculation of Mr Obama’s holiday costs included $63,000 for his wife’s early flight out, and $16,800 to house Secret Service agents and Navy Seals in beach front accommodation for two weeks.

There will be a further hotel bill estimated at $134,400 for 24 White House staff staying in the Moana Hotel at a rate of $400 a day.

The estimate, by the Hawaii Reporter, also included $250,000 for local police overtime, $1 million for the president’s own round trip flight to Hawaii on Air Force One, and $10,000 for a local ambulance to accompany the presidential motorcade.

Additional costs such as staff meals, renting cars for White House staff, and travel costs for Secret Service agents travelling ahead of the president were not included, meaning the bill will probably be even higher.

The paper suggested the costs could have been kept down. It said the president could have stayed at a military base instead of the luxury 7,000 sq ft villa he has rented for $3,500 a day which has been dubbed the “Winter White House.” Mr Obama is paying the rental himself.

“They could have chosen a less expensive and more secure place to stay such as a beachfront home on the Kaneohe Marine Corps Air Station just a two-minute drive away from the where they are now,” the newspaper said.

The White House has insisted the cost of Mr Obama’s holidays are in line with those of previous presidents.

Read more: Obama Extends Hawaiian Vacation by One Day

By way of Politico, here’s today’s Obama-hits-the-links update…

Human Events Senior Editor Emily Miller Twittered about how many rounds of golf Obama is up to these days:

This prompted John Kim, who is a coordinating producer for PGA.com, to respond this way:

Kim later noted how he should get elected president so he’d have more time to play golf. Careful dude, those deat… er, I mean — “end of life counseling committees” — aren’t just going to be for old people, you know.

But let’s not forget that golf can be a dangerous game, as the president found out yesterday in Hawaii:

“Your putting’s on fire,” Mr. Obama told Mr. Nesbitt on the ninth hole at the Mid Pacific Country Club here, where a presidential fivesome — including Mr. Nesbitt, Eric Whitaker, Mike Ramos and Bobby Titcomb, friends of the president from Chicago and Hawaii — spent much of the afternoon. The private club, in the ritzy neighborhood of Lanikai, boasts what its Web site calls a “highly acclaimed golf course” that has “hosted some of the finest golfers in the world.”

The pool of reporters traveling with Mr. Obama was allowed to watch from a balcony overlooking the course, where about 30 camera-toting onlookers also stood. Mr. Obama approached the green driving his own cart, with his left leg dangling out of the vehicle.

He shot a 5 on the ninth hole. At one point, as Dr. Whitaker took his approach shot from behind a tree in the rough, the ball whizzed past the president, missing him by about two feet.

It missed Obama by two feet, but it only missed TOTUS by one foot. That was a close one!

Whitaker… that’s not the same guy who elbowed Obama during a basketball game, is it? If so, the Secret Service might want to keep a closer eye on him.

Speaking of Obama’s golfing partners, tell me Bill Clinton wouldn’t have killed to have a guy named “Titcomb” in his inner circle when he was president (though I’ve heard unsubstantiated rumors that it was Bill’s Secret Service code name for a short time).