On Jun 15, 3:26 pm, Metspitzer <
Kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 15:18:44 -0400, Metspitzer <
Kilow...@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
> >I have seen lots of pictures of Africa. It shows entire towns
> >carrying water on their heads. The thing that makes me suspicious
> >about these pictures is that all of the water containers are plastic,
> >modern plastic. These have obviously been supplied by some type aid.
>
> >Why not send some PVC and a pump?
>
> Obama's Africa trip could cost $60-100 million
>
> A presidential trip to Africa this month could cost the government
> anywhere from $60 to $100 million dollars, according to the Washington
> Post, which obtained an internal planning document for the travel
> itinerary.
>
> At the end of June, Mr. Obama and his family will take an eight-day
> trip to sub-Saharan Africa, making stops in Senegal, Tanzania, and
> South Africa in the name of reinforcing U.S. commitment to forging
> strong relationships with emerging democracies in the region. The
> president will hold meetings with "a wide array of leaders from
> government, business, and civil society, including youth," according
> to a White House press release announcing the trip, and seek to
> "underscore the [his administration's] commitment to broadening and
> deepening cooperation between the United States and the people of
> sub-Saharan Africa to advance regional and global peace and
> prosperity."
>
> Presidential trips to foreign countries tend to be expensive in any
> administration: According to the Post, former President Bill Clinton's
> 1998 trip to Africa racked up a bill of at least $42.7 million, not
> including what were likely significant Secret Service costs. For his
> part, former President George W. Bush and his wife, Laura, took two
> trips to Africa in 2003 and 2008, involving significant resources as
> well. But the also paper reports that, due to "a confluence of
> factors," Mr. Obama's three-country trip could be "one of the most
> expensive" of his presidency.
>
> "Obama's trip could cost the federal government $60 million to $100
> million based on the costs of similar African trips in recent years,
> according to one person familiar with the journey, who was not
> authorized to speak for attribution," according to the Post. The paper
> said that it received the internal planning document from a "person
> who is concerned about the amount of resources necessary for the
> trip."
>
> According to the Post, the expenses listed on the document include:
>
> "Hundreds of U.S. Secret Service agents will be dispatched to
> secure facilities in Senegal, South Africa and Tanzania. A Navy
> aircraft carrier or amphibious ship, with a fully staffed medical
> trauma center, will be stationed offshore in case of an emergency.
>
> Military cargo planes will airlift in 56 support vehicles,
> including 14 limousines and three trucks loaded with sheets of
> bulletproof glass to cover the windows of the hotels where the first
> family will stay. Fighter jets will fly in shifts, giving 24-hour
> coverage over the president's airspace, so they can intervene quickly
> if an errant plane gets too close."
>
> Other sources of expense include the use of 56 vehicles and hundreds
> of Secret Service agents, according to the Post. The document,
> however, did not note specific prices.
>
> Mr. Obama and first lady Michelle Obama had reportedly been planning
> to go on a safari in Tanzania, but the Post says that trip was
> canceled after reporters inquired into the cost and purpose of the
> trip.
>
> At a press briefing on Friday, White House spokesman Ben Rhodes
> defended the trip, noting that "we have not traveled to Africa in the
> same way that we've traveled to other regions in the world" and that
> "Africa's a critically important region of the world."
>
> "We have huge interests there... So for the United States to say,
> 'We're a world leader except in this continent' doesn't make any
> sense," Rhodes told reporters. "From a foreign policy perspective, in
> some respects, people believe this trip is overdue. And, frankly,
> there will be a great bang for our buck for being in Africa, because
> when you travel to regions like Africa that don't get a lot of
> presidential attention, you can have very long-standing and
> long-running impact from the visit."
>
Bang for the buck?
I'd like to see examples of the "very long-running impact"
from any previous presidential visits to Africa.
Sure some segment of the population knows what's going
on, knows the president was there, etc. But as far as it
having some long-running impact in these peoples lives
or their countries? With the current budget situation,
maybe it's time to ask the African leaders to come here.
We could feed them lobster and caviar, put them up in
the best hotels, and it would be a tiny fraction of the cost
of Obama going there.
As for the scale of what's required for such a visit and the
cost, one of the cable channels, probably Discovery, was
in Africa when Bush visited. They showed what went on
before and during the visit. It was amazing. Some examples:
Any fuel sources for AF1 have to be tested and then
sealed and secured. In one country, they could not do
that to their satisfaction. So, the AF brought in 7 large
fuel tanker trucks, with fuel, aboard C17s from Europe
to refuel AF1.
They take both 747's that serve as AF1. During the visit
there was a volcano erupting and there was concern that
the ash could be a problem. So, they had one 747 fly
ahead of the other, checking the conditions. Seems to me
if you want to check for ash, it might be better to send
a cheap plane, but then, that's me. Apparently it's std
practice to send one ahead to check for best flight
levels, weather, etc, since they both have to go anyhow.
It really was an interesting show, to see all the complexity
involved.