Obama Administration Cuts Hillary Clinton's Historic Preservation Program

[Beacool]

WASHINGTON — As Hillary Rodham Clinton was leaving the White House, she asked Laura Bush first lady to first lady to continue one program if nothing else – the historic preservation program Save America's Treasures.

Mrs. Bush said she knew about the project and pledged to see it through.

Now, the grant program Clinton created that helped restore the original star-spangled banner, Rosa Parks' bus, President Lincoln's summer cottage in Washington and hundreds of sites across the country is on the current administration's chopping block.

"The unfortunate thing is we had no warning" the program was being wiped out of President Barack Obama's budget, said Bobbie Greene McCarthy, who has overseen the program at the National Trust for Historic Preservation and was Clinton's deputy chief of staff. "It was like being hit by a truck."

The program has paid out nearly $294 million over the past decade to more than 1,100 different sites and generated at least $377 million more in matching funds, according to the National Trust. The National Park Service administers the program, but the nonprofit trust is its chief advocate and helps coordinate applicants.

Historic preservation advocates have shifted into survival mode.

They argue the program, with its relatively meager federal funding of $30 million annually, has created more than 16,000 jobs across the country at a cost of about $14,000 each. They point out the White House's federal stimulus package is creating jobs at a cost of $248,000 each.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/07/save-americas-treasures-o_n_489418.html

This stinks, how about cutting the Defense Department budget? Not only is $30M a pittance, it will also cost jobs.

:(

[Bobbieo]

1. This does stink!!!!!!!

[PatGund]

2. Alas......

Laura Bush's husband took that huge surplus that Hillary Clinton's husband left behind, and turned it into a record deficit.

Which means, as worthwhile as this programme is, Michelle Obama's husband might have to let it go.

[PatGund]

3. Also....

While you quoted the part that praised Hillary Clinton to the high heavens, you left out this part:

"At the same time, the program has become a favorite pot of money for members of Congress to fund pet projects through earmarks. Lawmakers have sent home money to restore small-town movie houses and county courthouses.

The earmark process may have sullied its reputation as the program's competitive, merit-based process could be bypassed with a willing congressional sponsor. It's also a tight budget year with shifting priorities.
Story continues below

Budget watchdogs have been critical of the earmarks for years because they say the process rewards political muscle, not project merit.

"That certainly makes it a less desirable program from a budgetary perspective because it means it's inviting waste into the system," said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense. "It's supposed to be competitively awarded. Why would you then reserve all this money that is then just a fiefdom of powerful members of the Appropriations Committee?""

Sounds like under the Bushes, it became a cash cow and departed from the original reason SoS Clinton set it up as. Did you read that part, or just the "Clinton good, Obama bad" part??

[Hekate]

4. Good catch.

[CakeGrrl]

6. I think you answered your own question correctly.

"Clinton good, Obama bad" - it's a recurring theme with this OP.

[newthinking]

8. Read post #7

please. That is a simplistic way to look at it. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[newthinking]

9. Hmm, one Democrat over another... must be GOP propaganda? Or could it be Democratic thought process?

Not that I am giving into your "hypothesis". But have you thought about what you just said?

[JTFrog]

10. Standard MO for the OP. n/t

[Beacool]

12. Then fine tune the program, do not eliminate it.

:-(

[blm]

16. heheh....and, as IF Hillary (Hawk) Clinton would cut the Defense Budget. HAHAHAHAH

She sided WITH the warhawks AGAINST Biden and Kerry who were advising Obama on narrowing the military mission in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet some of her devoted base seem to have convinced themselves otherwise.

IMO, tapping a hawk as SOS was one of Obama's freshman mistakes.

[burning rain]

18. If the past is prologue, the idea isn't so far-fetched.

I have plenty of objections about moderate-to-conservative Clintonian policies, but the fact is that the Clinton administration, unlike the current crop, was liberal enough to cut the defense budget upon entering office, besides raising taxes on the rich.

[blm]

19. Try to make a case that HRC would TODAY, right now, be cutting Defense budget. You seem to have

completely forgotten that it was both Clintons who sided with these wars every bit as much as Lieberman did, but, with even MORE influence on other world leaders (Blair), Dem lawmakers unsure of Iraq intel, and the American public.

Plus...Obama had been leaning more towrads Biden and Kerry's view of narrowing the military mission in an effort to wind it down, while HILLARY sided with Gates and McChrystal - who wanted to INCREASE and expand the mission (hello Iran).

Not so far-fetched, eh? Can you prove it?

[burning rain]

20. Can you prove to a scientific certainty that she wouldn't?

Now, I'm no fan of Hillary's hawkishness, but it doesn't seem that unlikely to me she'd have been cheaper in her hawkishness, given the track record of the Clinton administration, which is after all something concrete and not just conjecture.

By the way, Obama not going with Kerry, but rather Hillary, as SoS was not a mere "freshman mistake" but a very calculated decision.

[blm]

21. I didn't WANT Kerry for SOS - though he would've done well. I wanted him in Senate making

a difference on many issues as well as heading SFRC - independently.

The track record of the Clintons goes alot LONGER than the first couple years of being in office in 93-94 (you know, when he was busy protecting the secrecy and privilege of Poppy Bush and deepsixing BCCI matters). Their influence on DEFENSE matters and increased use of military force is STILL going on. And....to delude oneself to think HRC would be inclined to cut the defense budget TODAY, one would have to also believe that neither Bill or Hillary were on the same page as Bush and Lieberman regarding Afghainstan and Iraq the last 10 years. We KNOW they were....despite their sporadic and weak CYA statements, especially during the primary. Blair's testimony has been proving it, too. He was ready in 2000 to invade Iraq - gee....who was he in conference with back then?

[Beacool]

28. I see, now Hillary is in charge of the Defense Department?

Funny, I thought that she was the SOS, not the SOD.

:eyes:

[blm]

35. she sided WITH the SOD as SOS...or did that escape your notice? You REALLY believe she'd CUT defense

spending TODAY if only she were in the Oval Office? Or....was that just another cheap, and patently ABSURD shot you're taking at Obama to glorify HRC that has no basis in reality?

[Beacool]

41. Oh yeah, I forgot that around here it's all about Obama.

:eyes:



:crazy:

[blm]

43. Hardly...look around...it's NOT all about O...but, your cheap potshots at him to glorify a warhawk

are absurd.

[vaberella]

27. Probably hence the cut. There are many misleading posts here. n/t

[mkultra]

32. lol BUSTED!!

[denimgirly]

5. Meh..if other museums dont need federal funding then....

yada..yada....

[newthinking]

7. It's not about museums. It preserves historic buildings. Obviously people here aren't much aware

of how many of our historic building are being lost.

Do you think that this is just a matter of "the ex prez wife's little boutique program? That was not even what she was known for. She asked them not to cut it because of how important she felt it was to the COUNTRY!

Geez, it blows me away how people have to view everything through some kind of skeptic partisan eyepiece. It's so damn obvious even if you aren't familiar with what the program does.

If it is being abused then do something about the abuse. Don't destroy what is an important program and allow our historical heritage to deteriorate.

I don't think what is happening is "clear" "Abuse". What is likely going on is the program is actually bi-partisan. While there is certainly likely to be abuse, both Democrats and Republicans believe that most of the population appreciates it when historical structures are preserved. So it is their "pork of choice", being consistent with their ideology while bringing home a project.

So let's just reward a bi-party supported project that is good for the country with the axe, because it is just so doggone well liked that some overdue it and abuse it.

[Beacool]

13. It saddens me that so many people don't appear to give a hoot about our national heritage.

These sites and buildings are part of our history and we should preserve them for the sake of future generations. Furthermore, I don't care who initiated the program, the point is that it costs almost nothing and it has generated jobs and more than enough resources from private donors.

I hope that they can save it from the chopping block.

;(

[rasputin1952]

15. Every day we see or hear of some other historic site or building...

being taken over by something less than desirable; it's all about the dollar and how to squeeze every cent from a piece of land.

Battle fields are a prime example of greed over historical preservation. It has been rumored for quite some time that a few Revolutionary soldiers are buried beneath the gas station where the video for "Uptown Girl" was shot in Upper Manhattan. Owners of the property have refused excavation, so, if these men who died during the Revolution protecting Washington's retreat from NY to NJ are buried there, they are there for a long time to come.

Wal-Mart won in court to build on a part of the Manassas site...many other sites have already been built upon or plans are in the works. Historic buildings are razed and people seem just not to care. Sad indeed...:(

[Beacool]

25. Yes, it's just as bad as when they demolished the old Penn Station in NY

If you've seen pics of the old building and the disgustingly ugly monstrosity that they built in its place, it would make you weep.

x(

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. More change we can believe in?

[Beacool]

14. To be fair, I'm not sure whether Obama personally knows about this.

The people who run this program are planning to contact Michelle and see if she can help save it.

;)

[proud2BlibKansan]

23. He's the boss

He should know.

[Beacool]

24. Well, how well do he and Congress read these things?

They all seemed shocked, just SHOCKED, about the AIG bonuses even thought they were included in the TARP and stimulus package.

:eyes:

[proud2BlibKansan]

34. Apparently not well enough

:)

[burning rain]

17. It is unfortunate.

This, together with the proposed NASA cutbacks, appears to indicate a lack of appreciation for our national need for inspiration and aspiration, as distinct from just getting the economy going in a more utilitarian way.

[blm]

22. Maybe Clintons shouldn't have been so gung ho about spending so much on increased military force

as they stayed sided with Bush on his military decisions, helped Bush SELL invasion to other Dem lawmakers, and are still sided with Gates and McChrystal's hawk views, whereby the military mission under Obama would actually EXPAND, not wind down.

[Beacool]

26. Aha, it's always the Clintons fault.

Par for the course on this board.........

:eyes:

[burning rain]

38. This particular character would probably blame the Clintons if his dog died.

.

[Beacool]

40. Reptilian?

:D

[burning rain]

42. Not up to that level, I regret to say.

:evilgrin: :D

[burning rain]

31. The White House & Congress, not the Clintons, own the budget now.

You are getting to be like mad old Captain Ahab obsessed with the whale. I suggest you find a You Tube vid of John Kerry's BCCI exploits and have a wank. It might put you in a nicer mood.

[blm]

36. You act as if Clintons had NOTHING to do with any of it. BTW, defending the indefensible is your

idea of a good time. Whether or not that past time of yours gets YOU off is entirely none of my business.

I also note that you have no problem whatsoever with the 'bashing Obama to glorify Clinton' focus of other posts. Bit of hypocrisy, eh?

BTW....I'd rather side with Kerry's exposure of BCCI any day of the week over the deepsixing of BCCI to protect BushInc side that YOU defend.

[burning rain]

37. No hypocrisy at all.

The Clinton administration went out in 2001, and while I had and have plenty of differences with that administration, it... well, ended in 2001. So criticizing Clintonism is not nearly as topical and urgent an issue as the errors of the current White House, although I have criticized various Clinton policies any number of times. And, as secretary of state, Hillary doesn't own the budget, while during the Bush administration, despite (deplorably) being one of the most hawkish Democrats, she was just one of 100 US senators. It is the current White House and current Congress that have ownership now.

I have no problem with responsible, rational Clinton criticism, however harsh. Such is my attitude to criticism in general. You, however, have demonstrated time and again that you are pleased to believe and repeat wild, conspiratorial anti-Clinton stuff as fact, and constantly assign them more blame than they are due. I do not fault you for not being a fan of the Clintons but I do fault you for taking leave of reason whenever your mind turns to them.

[blm]

39. Baloney - the thread deserved the attention it received. It was written for a reason and I replied

accordingly.

[catgirl]

44. You're right n/t

[high density]

29. It's not costing $248k for a stimulus job

People quoting that number have no clue what they are talking about.

[karynnj]

30. It might be that this is not right time

The fact is that the budget really is a problem. They have to look everywhere to find anything that could possibly be cut. While this is a good program, that likely preserved many pieces of history, it might be that it is not something the federal government can fund at this point in time.

As someone who has taken my now adult children on so many tours of historical sites that they joke about it, I value what has been preserved. I also recognize that this is time where getting money from non profits is likely far harder as well. But, there still are places that will be saved through local (or interest group) fundraising.

The only compelling argument they have made is that it creates jobs. That claim needs to be looked at closely as it might be a way to justify the expense.

[Beacool]

33. It appears that they were blindsided.

We'll see what happens. It says in the article that Hillary was informed. I'm sure that she'll make a few phone calls to some people. They also want to involve Michelle and maybe she can be an advocate for the program too. We are losing far too much of our history and it's something that we should preserve for future generations. We are only the temporary guardians of these treasures. It is our responsibility to guard them well.

:-(