MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Mike Pence's National Anthem Stunt Cost More Than $300,000

That's quite a lot of money to prove your loyalty to a song. And why are we paying to send politicians to football games anyway?

Sam Riche/TNS/NewscomSam Riche/TNS/NewscomRemember when Vice President Mike Pence made a big point of leaving an Indianapolis Colts game last October after several players knelt during the national anthem? That stunt cost more than $300,000, with taxpayers likely footing the majority of the bill.

The walkout came at the height of the NFL's national anthem controversy. Weeks earlier, President Donald Trump had denounced the protests, suggesting they ought to be fired. Predictably, that just prompted more players to take a knee.

Pence, who had served as governor of Indiana before becoming vice president, wanted everyone to know he wouldn't tolerate such disrespect. On October 8, he went to Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis to watch the Colts take on the 49ers. After multiple 49ers kneeled during "The Star-Spangled Banner," Pence left. Pence later said he "will not dignify any event that disrespects our soldiers, our Flag, or our National Anthem."

That stunt came with a hefty price tag—at least $325,000, if you accept HuffPost's calculations. HuffPost obtained documents from the Department of Homeland Security detailing the Secret Service's expenses. All told, the vice president's security detail racked up more than $75,000 in costs. Most of that—$64,637.88—was spent on hotel rooms. Another $11,000 went to additional travel expenses and temporary walkways that were set up in preparation for Pence's visit.

What about the rest? Well, it's not exactly cheap for the vice president to travel on Air Force Two. Pence flew to Indianapolis from Las Vegas, then departed for Los Angeles. As The Washington Post reported last year:

It costs the federal government about $43,000 an hour to fly Air Force Two, according to a 2012 estimate by the Air Force. Assuming a total flight time of six hours for the journey east and then west again, the tab for the flight alone would have topped $250,000.

HuffPost arrived at its $325,000 figure by adding $75,000 to the Post's $250,000 estimate. But the correct number may be a bit less. According to CNN, Air Force Two's hourly cost is closer to $30,000. CNN pegged Pence's total time in the air—from Las Vegas to Indianapolis to Los Angeles—at just over eight hours, putting the cost of the flight at roughly $242,500. Moreover, Pence was in Southern California for series of political fundraisers, so the Republican National Committee likely reimbursed the federal government for a portion of his flight costs.

Regardless of the exact number, Pence's stunt didn't just cost the federal government. According to the left-leaning advocacy group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Pence's presence at the game also cost Indianapolis police more than $14,000.

There's no question Pence's national anthem stunt cost taxpayers a pretty penny. But even if he had stayed and watched the game, the expenses would have been the same. That raises a question: Why should taxpayers foot the bill for high-profile politicians to attend sporting events in the first place? To the extent that they're just there to be seen, we shouldn't have to pay for their publicity. And if they really do care about the game, maybe they should watch on TV like the rest of us.

Photo Credit: Sam Riche/TNS/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Nardz||

    Is this an increase, decrease, or the same amount spent for previous administrations?
    It would be nice to have something to compare to, faggot (stronger together!) Joe.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    I'm pretty sure Biden went to a game or two, even without protesting. False gaslighting.

  • Zeb||

    We shouldn't have been paying for that either.

  • What's that smell?||

    Any time anyone of these MFer's goes anywhere it costs the tax payers. Why is this news now and not when Obammy went golfing with Tiger Woods?

  • Overt||

    More specifically, a lot is unanswered here. Why was Pence in Indianapolis? Was he there for some meetings and happened to catch a football game while he was there?

    If Pence merely stopped in Indiana to see the football game, then it isn't the protest that cost $300k- it was the entire trip. Whether he protested or not, it would have cost the same.

    What really pisses me off is that Reason could have, you know, criticized the actual protest itself. Instead Reason- a magazine supposedly dedicated to logic and, ya know, reason- cribbed notes from the fucking hacks at HuffPost?

  • Michael P||

    The goal wasn't to level a legitimate complaint, as revealed by the steady walk-back of the headline number. The point was to echo the HuffPo's frivolously inflated number.

  • Cathy L||

    Would you like to justify, from a libertarian perspective, taxpayers paying to send high-profile politicians to major sporting events?

  • Here for the outrage||

    He was in the area at a textile warehouse checking the fabric for your new handmaids outfits. Two birds with on stone

  • Agammamon||

    Why would Reason criticize the protest?

  • Zeb||

    Doesn't matter. It's unreasonable in an absolute sense. High profile politicians like that should pay for their own security for public appearances that are not essential to the functions of their offices. Why are we paying for the VP to go to a football game? If he wants to go to a football game, he can pay his own way. Otherwise, he's provided with a secure residence and can stay there.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Why we pay for any of this is beyond me.

  • Agammamon||

    Why? The issue here isn't *how much* is being spent, but *what* that money is being spent on. No matter how little, the taxpayers should not be footing the bill for the dude's recreational activities. If you can't handle taking time off in and around Washington DC for 4 years then maybe you should not take the office there.

  • BambiB||

    We just wrapped up the "maybe" politics of a Supreme Court nomination, yet this persists:

    That stunt cost more than $300,000, with taxpayers likely footing the majority of the bill.
    That stunt came with a hefty price tag—at least $325,000, if you accept HuffPost's calculations.

    How about some facts instead of guesses and innuendo? Like, for instance, the cost of one of Obozo's trips to Hawaii?

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    You can send your suggestions to the cardboard cut out of the White House that was set up just for this purpose.

  • Fancylad||

    Another dishonest Seyton column.
    The money was already spent whether Pence walked or stayed. It doesn't matter one iota if he pulled a "stunt" and ran out crying, or watched the whole game and clapped like a seal for the kneelers.

    The question should be, "is it worth it for the taxpayer to foot the security bill for politicians outings?" For instance every round of golf Barry played cost a hell of a lot more than 300k. But in truth it's not the cost that actually worries Seyton and Huffpo one little bit. Focusing on government waste is irrelevant to the narrative.
    It's that an evil witch like Pence is out there prancing around unburned, and speaking great blasphemies against bien pensant doctrine.

  • BambiB||

    Every breath Obozo takes is "rubbing our taxpaying peons' noses in the political poop-points of the politicians".

    Used to be smuggling guns to criminal drug lords in Mexico. Then it was keeping our plans and our doctors.

    These days it's rent for $1.

  • Tony||

    Mike Pence can't be a giant cunt, he believes in Sky Grandpa really really hard, and he, like, watches sports.

  • Fancylad||

    If there's anything that'll disgust Tony, it a giant cunt. If Pence had been an enormous dick like the players were being, it would have been cool.

  • Tony||

    He has a head that doesn't seem to be able to fit a normal-sized brain.

  • Cy||

    Yeah, Pence is a special kind of asshole. But at least he's not a socialist or a commie.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Who are you trying to fool? The faux libertarian yahoos will be toe-on-the-line, hand-over-heart for Pence is he is the Republican nominee for president. After figuratively fellating Trump, the right-wingers are all-in on backwardness, intolerance, and especially old-timey, prudish, authoritarian superstition.

  • Cy||

    Again... at least he's not a fucking socialist or a piece of shit commie.

    I'm not the one who get's to pick where they set the bar, I just have to deal with it.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Pence is a gullible, authoritarian bigot. Faux libertarians -- especially the poorly educated, disaffected, superstitious, unskilled, gullible losers from Lower Yahooville -- love him.

  • Tony||

    Neither is Terry Shiavo but I'm sure most of us who aren't Republicans can agree that she shouldn't be in charge of the country.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    That's an odd one to dig out of storage.

  • Zeb||

    It's hard to break Senate ties when you're a vegetable, but otherwise, she could have done the job OK.

  • creech||

    I'll get on-board with HuffPost's proposal that a panel of Libertarian Party members review all government spending, with the power to charge back frivolous and unnecessary expenses to the pols involved. Obviously we can't rely on Team Red/Team Blue to cut out the nonsense.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Freedom ain't free.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    The cult-like worship of the flag, the national anthem, and the military by the right demonstrates the utter hatred of the right for individualist thought and action.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    The Left and The Right are just two different types of collectivist tribes. One is oriented around economic collectivism. The other is oriented around nationalist collectivism. Neither one gives much of a shit about individuals if those individuals choose to dissent from the prevailing collectivist orthodoxy.

  • TuIpa||

    Just fuck already

  • TuIpa||

    For someone with such powers of observation and a gift for statement of the obvious, you sure do believe some stupid debunked nonsense.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Is everything the Vice President does now unacceptable because of how much it costs to fly him around on Air Force Two and keep him safe?

    Are you proposing to cut off funding for Air Force Two? Maybe you want to abolish the office of Vice President?

    Or do you just want to bitch and moan about anything and everything he does that you don't like?

    Just for the record, I'd like to abolish half of the government over the next year, and making a mockery of that because you don't like Pence's stance on NFL players kneeling is kind of insulting.

    "petty" adjective
    pet·ty | \ ˈpe-tē
    \
    pettier; pettiest
    Definition of petty

    1 : having secondary rank or importance : minor, subordinate

    2 : having little or no importance or significance

    3 : marked by or reflective of narrow interests and sympathies : small-minded

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/petty

    I want to phase out Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, and there isn't anything petty about it.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

  • Ken Shultz||

    How is your link relevant to anything I wrote?

    P.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Good thing Trump doesn't believe in exercise.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Are you proposing to cut off funding for Air Force Two? Maybe you want to abolish the office of Vice President?

    Sounds good to me.

  • Cathy L||

    Are you proposing to cut off funding for Air Force Two? Maybe you want to abolish the office of Vice President?

    Let's go to the post and see. Hmm, let's see, no, no proposals to cut off funding for Air Force Two or abolish the office of the VP. But here is a suggestion:

    There's no question Pence's national anthem stunt cost taxpayers a pretty penny. But even if he had stayed and watched the game, the expenses would have been the same. That raises a question: Why should taxpayers foot the bill for high-profile politicians to attend sporting events in the first place? To the extent that they're just there to be seen, we shouldn't have to pay for their publicity. And if they really do care about the game, maybe they should watch on TV like the rest of us.

    Now, do you want to explain why you're so butthurt about a suggestion that the VP should watch football games on TV instead of turning them into expensive publicity stunts?

  • Ken Shultz||

    You really don't get it, do you?

    Arguing that the office of Vice President should be abolished or funding for Air Force Two cut might make this acceptable. Otherwise, this is just an exercise in pettiness.

    I've already pointed out that:

    1) It's petty.

    2) It makes a mockery of those of us who actually want to cut off huge chunks of the government.

    So, now I've written the same thing twice. Don't ask me to answer the same question again. Just read what I've already written over and over again until you understand it. You don't have to agree in order to understand, but it may save you from embarrassing yourself in the future. And how could it not be embarrassing? I'm not using any big words.

  • Cathy L||

    Yeah, I'm the one who should be embarrassed because I'm defending expenditures on Mike Pence's publicity stunts.

    Arguing that the office of Vice President should be abolished or funding for Air Force Two cut might make this acceptable. Otherwise, this is just an exercise in pettiness.

    I'll remember you don't care about "petty" spending cuts next time a budget rolls around.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Did you really read what I wrote and come away thinking that I don't care about spending? How embarrassing for you!

    Because I care about spending, do you imagine that means I can't call out pettiness when I see it?

  • Agammamon||

    You're worse than that here. You're being one of those people who are saying 'don't start over there, that's not important. If we can't start over here (and we can't) then there's no reason to start at all'.

    Yes, the money Pence spent here is peanuts. And when you're trying to improve a system you start with the easy improvements first.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I disagree. I don't think this piece is really about cutting spending at all. I think this is using penny ante objections as a cover for standard TDS horseshit. And I don't appreciate seeing fiscal conservatism treated that way.

  • Agammamon||

    I don't think its doing that, I think its just poorly written.

    He hits the proper notes - but not until the last couple of paragraphs. Before that he's just using the 'outrage-du-jour' to get his audience riled up (and it certainly worked). Bad writing, not bad fiscal conservatism.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "I'll remember you don't care about "petty" spending cuts next time a budget rolls around."

    Didn't you already establish, yourself, above that this really wasn't about spending cuts?

  • Cathy L||

    Didn't you already establish, yourself, above that this really wasn't about spending cuts?

    Lol. No, I did the opposite.

  • Ben of Houston||

    Don't make a strawman Ken. I think we can all agree that some expenses are both acceptable and inevitable. The Vice president is a necessary post, and the VP often has to get places rapidly, justifying the existence of Air Force 2. Similarly, the VP's security is a necessary cost that must be accepted (though we can argue about inefficiency in that regard as well).

    However, the magnitude of the waste is excessive. In this particular instance, the cost to benefit ratio is unacceptable, and we should review whether these forms of expenses should be legally restricted.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I wasn't making a straw man; I was using process of elimination.

    If it isn't really about abolishing the office and it isn't really about spending, then what are we really talking about?

    I propose petty TDS and bullshit about the NFL protest as a likely explanation.

  • Zeb||

    Is everything the Vice President does now unacceptable because of how much it costs to fly him around on Air Force Two and keep him safe?

    Yes. Unless an activity is essential to his office (and there isn't much essential to the office of VP), he should pay his own expenses, including security and transportation. If that's to restrictive for him and his family, he can resign.

    It is somewhat petty in the grand scheme of things, but fuck these assholes who think they get to campaign and recreate on the taxpayer dime.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Nothing the Vice President does is essential but voting to break ties in the senate and staying alive in case something happens to the President. If they want to argue for slashing the Vice President's budget regardless of what he's doing, then they should go ahead and say that.

    However, that wouldn't lend itself to bitching about the Trump administration's stance on NFL protests--and isn't that what this article is really about?

  • Ben of Houston||

    Zeb, we need to be careful. We don't want a situation like the Texas Legislature, which is only available to the self-employed, the independently wealthy, and the corrupt.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Agreed Ken in that this is another Reason complaint that is BS.

    Don't get me wrong, like all libertarians, I think this grandstanding at taxpayer expense should stop for all politicians, but most of this cost, as you note, is likely in security and the P, VP, etc, should be able to go to public events from time to time.

    Furthermore, while walking out was 100% about politics, every politician regardless of security needs has the right to leave a public event for whatever reason they so choose at the time they choose to do so.

    What if some politician were invited to say a football game where the NFL was highlighting breast cancer charities, but they were being agressively protested for whatever? Maybe they leave just to pull the spotlight off themselves.

    And where they decide to go cannot become at issue as many politicians spend time in bars and all kinds of 'entertainment' places while glad handing and what not.

    Point being Pence did nothing wrong here, unless you disagree with his stance against kneeling (I for one don't care about KneelGate either way, just saying he had a right to go and a right to leave, so what's the problem?).

  • ||

    I'm pretty sure that it would have cost the same if he hadn't walked out...

    CB

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The conjecture is that he went there just so he could walk out. I'm not convinced that's inaccurate. Am I thrilled to be footing the bill for him seeing a Colts game in person? Meh. I'm sure not happy if I was paying for him to make a stupid, counterproductive political point.

  • Fancylad||

    This.

  • Cathy L||

    Wow, it's like no one ever thought of that before you.

    Oh wait. From the post:

    There's no question Pence's national anthem stunt cost taxpayers a pretty penny. But even if he had stayed and watched the game, the expenses would have been the same. That raises a question: Why should taxpayers foot the bill for high-profile politicians to attend sporting events in the first place? To the extent that they're just there to be seen, we shouldn't have to pay for their publicity. And if they really do care about the game, maybe they should watch on TV like the rest of us.
  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Virtue signaling on the taxpayer's dime is okay when it's Patriotically Correct.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    Good to see Huffpost concerned about government spending on frivolous bullshit.

  • damikesc||

    Their coverage on Barack and Michelles seperate vacations and the costs involved were legendary.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    That's what I like about Huffpost, their religious devotion to objectivity.

  • Dillinger||

    only cost $325k if P was going to do nothing else that day.

  • Agammamon||

    What was the *Vice-President* going to be doing that is *government-related* in Indianapolis?

  • Dillinger||

    does it matter? the office itself costs us whether he's going to the Colts game or dinner@mom's

    HuffPo & Seyton are zero-summing the cost of the Colts game, which is incorrect.

  • Agammamon||

    So then he doesn't get to go to dinner at mom's at my expense either - that is not a government related expense.

  • Dillinger||

    are we arguing? we're on the same page re: senseless cost of office of VP.

    Seyton forwarded bad math. all i was saying.

  • Rich||

    Why should taxpayers foot the bill for high-profile politicians to attend sporting events in the first place?

    *** scratches head ***

    Because it's a Free Country?

  • Cathy L||

    Ah yes, the freedom to have taxpayers fund your publicity stunts. It's right there in one of the penumbras, right?

    Too bad I have no freedom to not have my tax dollars stolen from me.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Just so I know what game we're playing, which presidential stunts do we care about now, that we didn't care about in 2015?

  • Cathy L||

    You should ask your Republican friends about that.

  • Greg F||

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I'm not sure how helpful these articles are. When the president swings into the Ramada inn, it costs taxpayers around $500,000. If he decides he'd rather stay at the Holiday Inn Express, add another $150,000 to it.

    When the President (or veep) leaves the white house, it's expensive. Very expensive.

    How much did Vice News' fawning interview of Obama cost the taxpayers? Probably about a million bucks.

  • Cathy L||

    When the President (or veep) leaves the white house, it's expensive. Very expensive.

    So libertarians should definitely not criticize when he leaves the White House for 100% bullshit purposes.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    News flash, everything the president does when he leaves the white house is for bullshit purposes.

  • Agammamon||

    Good. Now can we agree that he shouldn't leave the White House and if he does we shouldn't have to pay for it?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Say, what would the market rate be for renting the White House? Ditto the Naval Observatory. Not to pick on Trump and Pence, but they are the current occupants.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I say that if they travel outside of DC, they pay for everything. Including security.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Why only when they leave DC?

  • Zeb||

    Make it whenever they leave their official residence. Video conferencing is a thing. Why do they need to go anywhere? Maybe there are some circumstances where a face to face meeting is necessary somewhere else. But those would be very rare.

    It would be hilarious and awesome if high profile politicians were basically under house arrest. You want the job? That's the deal.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I kind of wonder what it would be like if they didn't get free security for life afterwards.

  • Agammamon||

    I think their concern for their 'legacy' would look a lot different while they were in office.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Gotta start somewhere. I'd be fine with more extraordinary limits. After all, what are they traveling around for, anyway? Mostly partisan crap, not executing their constitutional duties.

  • Vernon Depner||

    But even if he had stayed and watched the game, the expenses would have been the same.

    In other words: Yes, we know this story is bullshit, and that you'll figure that out the second you read the headline, but we're going to publish it anyway because the people we're virtue signaling to won't care that it's bullshit.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    Yes, we know the story is bullshit, and we're still going to copy the Huffpost headline fucking word for word.

  • Cathy L||

    Would you like to defend the expense of sending Pence to a football game?

  • Dillinger||

    makes China look weak - we're so fucking awesome our leaders can chillax @the game - worth it.

  • Agammamon||

    Then you pay for it - don't demand that I do.

  • Dillinger||

    you may have taken me more seriously here than was my intent.

  • Vernon Depner||

    The job of Vice President is largely ceremonial and political. I don't have a problem with him making public appearances. I don't have a problem with the President and Vice President traveling and appearing in a style appropriate to their positions. I don't have a problem with assuring their safety at public appearances.

  • jjjjj||

    This crap about vacation days and rounds of golf and hours of airplane flight is fine if you apply it to everybody, but it only seems to come up when your guy is not in charge.

    Go away.

  • Zeb||

    Whose guy?

    I seem to recall hearing plenty about Obama spending lots of taxpayer money on vacations and campaign stops.

  • Agammamon||

    Somebody never bothered to read the Reason articles on the maaaaasssssiiiiivvveee expenses the Obama's racked up on their recreational travel.

    OTOH, I don't recall you posting there about how that was bad - so, go away.

  • Zeb||

    Obama is Reason's guy. It is known.

  • jjjjj||

    I don't recall their being Reason articles about Obama's outrageous travel expenses. A whole lot posted on the more right-leaning sites, but Reason seemed to stay above the fray on Obama, criticizing his wasteful spending where it was much larger in total dollars and scope of government.

    This article is a rehash of a bunch of left-leaning unfriendly to Trump sources. Not that I'm a big fan of Trump, but this article is a waste of electricity and adds no value to the stories it cites. In the good old days Reason would bring up how it has been going on across all administrations.

  • Agammamon||

    I know you don't. Hence your original post. Now, go away.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    So any public event any VP shows up to, they must stay until the very end no matter the circumstances, right?

    Or do politicians still have the ability to make those decisions for themselves?

  • A Thinking Mind||

    It's going a bit over the board when you're getting your takes and stories DIRECTLY from Huffington Post. I come here because reading that sort of shit actually hurts me, i don't expect to find it repeated here.

  • livelikearefugee||

    I don't read the comment section very often so forgive me if someone has already pointed this out but is Mike Pence really Race Bannon?

    Of course, you won't forgive me, you'll heap scorn and invective upon me. Curse you all.

  • Dillinger||

    lol. Everyone knows Race and Dr. Quest are married.

  • Vernon Depner||

    And they have a brown adopted child. A model progressive family.

  • Alcibiades||

    So it's come to this, Reason is reduced to recycling Huff Po drivel and no, I don't believe their numbers for one second.

  • Agammamon||

    Remember when Vice President Mike Pence made a big point of leaving an Indianapolis Colts game last October after several players knelt during the national anthem? That stunt cost more than $300,000, with taxpayers likely footing the majority of the bill.

    OK, but the way this is written assumes that Pence traveled there specifically so he'd have a chance to walk out ('the stunt'). Its more likely along the lines of 'it doesn't cost me a dime either way, so I can afford to virtue signal in this instance'.

    Pence's presence at the game also cost Indianapolis police more than $14,000.

    Well, no. No it did not cost the Indianapolis police a single dime. It cost the Indianapolis taxpayers 14k. The *police* made out like bandits. Because they chose to . . . do whatever it is they do when a Vice-President is in town (and why its 'nothing, you have your own police force so don't bother us' is skipped over here) because they know that the taxpayer footing the bill doesn't get a say because they have the guns.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    The New Libertarian Mantra:

    Fuck You, Cut Spending!*

    *except if the spending makes the libs cry

  • Lost in the Woods||

    I am not sure I fully understand the point of this article, and the related 'outrage'. If the point is that Pence had no other reason to be in Indianapolis, and flew there and went to the game for the express purpose of leaving early in protest, then yes, I get it. Huge waste of resources. And more importantly, there is no reason for him to get involved in football at all. He and Trump should stay out of it. But, then the article seems to suggest that Pence (because he has a security detail and flies on Air Force 2) somehow shouldn't be allowed to go to any public places? And should . . . what . . . . just stay sequestered in the basement of the White House? I suppose if we could get all politicians to do this, that would be a huge win for America. But somehow I think maybe the HuffPost was being dis-ingenuous. I don't recall them being worried about taxpayer dollars during the Obama administration. Maybe they just wanted to pick on Pence because . . . Trump.

  • Agammamon||

    Yeah, pretty much. If you can't handle staying at home for 4 years then maybe either pay for that shit yourself or don't take the job.

    I'm not paying for the dude to go to football games. Hell, even if he was in Indianapolis for legitimate government work (and there really isn't any of that for the Vice-President), I would still be pissed that I was forced to spend even a penny to pay for the local police and special access he got going to that game. Even the SS costs would have increased because those guys do get paid overtime and it would require more people on duty, and more people pulling OT, to support his security detail while out than it would with him sitting in the hotel room overnight.

    Fuck him. And yes, that goes for Trump, Obama, Biden, every Senator (if they were still on state payrolls then, in my opinion, it would be a state issue and I'd only be complaining about paying for my own Senator's recreation).

  • esteve7||

    Sorry, I am more concerned about this, which no one wants to cover. Fascists in the streets and no one cares

    twitter.com/BevHillsAntifa7/ status/1049302078806323200

  • Zeb||

    Got any more context for that? I have no idea what's going on there, except some people (Antifa associates, I assume) are being dicks to people in cars.

  • esteve7||

    street anarchy, antifa blocking traffic and assaulting people. These fascist thugs must be stopped, and the Portland police do nothing.

    More:
    https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/ status/1049311168953630720

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, that's not good.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Fixed link.

    I see obesity is a serious problem in the Antifa Ranks.

  • Zeb||

    Heh, yeah. I kind of expected Antifa to be younger and fitter.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    So yeah, get ready for six more years of Trump.

  • esteve7||

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/anarchy-breaks- out-in-portland-with-the- mayors-blessing-1533331454

    "A vicious mob targeted the ICE office and even a food cart. The police followed orders to do nothing."

    The major ordered police not to do their job while violent thugs were assaulting people. This is unacceptable, but no lets talk about Pence and the national anthem

  • Alcibiades||

    In Texas, nothing, except good shooting, he needed killin'.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Yeah, seriously, it depends on state laws. The vary a lot.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Never have so many bad links been posted in so few minutes.

  • Vernon Depner||

    People under 55 never had any need to learn HTML.

  • Zeb||

    Those who post links here did.

  • esteve7||

    nah I just refuse to do that because Reason comments should be able to work with a link like every other site

  • Alcibiades||

    ^ ^ ^

    This

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    If nothing else, I find HuffPo's bean-counting concern article cute in a way. Because, I mean, again, we can play this game, and I'm more than happy to. Let's see who blinks first.

  • Eddy||

    I see that naming a politician after the smallest unit of British currency didn't do much good.

    He's still shilling for big government.

  • Eddy||

    (I'm not counting half-pence because that's a subunit of pence, duh)

  • Zeb||

    Are we talking New Pence or Old?

    How about farthings?

  • Eddy||

    Look, I'm telling *my* truth, OK?

    Let me know when reality has improved so I can accept it in lieu of my truth.

  • Bob Mitchell||

    I don't really see any point to this article. It seems petty and insignificant. I guess Reason has third level accountants writing articles now.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    It also uses a number in the headline that the body of the article itself says is inaccurate.

    So...fake news?

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Guys, he's the Vice President. We shouldn't save money by expecting him to hide in his DC home. We should save money by giving him a pistol and telling him to take care of his own security.

  • Jerry B.||

    "...if you accept HuffPost's calculations."

    Yeah. Right.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online