Tuesday, February 9, 2010

No Way! Pres. Obama is Anti-Vegas?

Welcome, Dear Readers.

Now, I am sure you all, like me, were shocked-- just absolutely floored, when you heard about Pres. Barack Obama’s insulting reference to Las Vegas.

Wait, audience, what is that you’re saying? What do you mean you don’t watch the press conferences? Are you kidding me? I’m very disappointed in you.

Now, if we look at his remark in depth we can understand that the people who care most are the people affected least-- the nation’s growing political peanut gallery (I am not an official “peanut”) and representatives from both sides of the political spectrum (do I smell something “mavericky” in the air?) whose voters tend to reside in non-Nevada states.

Here are Obama’s precise words, “You don’t go buying a boat when you can barely pay a mortgage. You don’t blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you’re trying to save for college. You prioritize. You make tough choices.” (Full Story)

Well I am flabbergasted! How dare he suggest to us how to spend our money! I say we cash in our college savings and run to Vegas, just to spite him! However, since I have a brain and am capable of rational thinking, and also since I try to be a champion of the misunderstood and misrepresented, I would like to point out a few elements within the speech that were ignored.

First, where are all the boat manufacturers in this debacle, huh? Pres. Obama slighted boat-makers just as much as Vegas! Apparently they don’t hang on every word that comes forth from the president’s mouth. And if they did, they must not care that much.  Unlike some, apparently…

Second, it is a known fact that the odds are against you when you gamble in a casino. I was once given wise counsel to this effect: set fire to your money instead, at least you can sit and watch the flames. Las Vegas knows that it thrives on tourism, popularly interpreted as gambling.

However, they cannot accuse Pres. Obama’s admonition for people not to spend extravagantly in a city that, by the way, is infamous for overindulgence, during tough times as being anti-Vegas. That’s a bit of an overreaction. He correctly used it as an example of tourism that should take a backseat to a college education. I think it would be a lot less effective of an example to say, “You don’t blow a bunch of cash on Legoland when you’re trying to save for college.” It is sound advice for the financially un-savvy. Everyone’s thinking it; he’s just saying it.

His comment last year that bailout money should not be used for corporate trips to Vegas is also under fire. Why? The president gave them the money. He is not enforcing his words with Gestapo. He is like a father telling his son not to spend his entire allowance on gumballs and jawbreakers.

And to be perfectly frank, how is traveling to Vegas going to help a company reorganize and streamline, not to mention cut costs and spending, when they’re paying $1600-a-night for a penthouse suite on the Strip? That doesn’t sound very thrifty to me. Pres. Obama is merely trying to steer the country, as a whole, where it needs to be going.

And as for the reaction of Las Vegas, where Mayor Oscar Goodman announced that Pres. Obama is no longer a welcome guest to Las Vegas, and that, “I will do everything I can to give him the boot.” He added, “The president is a real slow learner.” That is a bold statement, Mayor Goodman. Maybe even borderline unwise.

Somehow, to me, in my little politically-ignorant mind, shunning the President of the United States of America from your city over a poorly-chosen statement does not sound like a smart idea. Especially since Pres. Obama has previously remarked that he enjoys visiting Las Vegas.

Additionally, Pres. Obama's remarks included, “You prioritize. You make tough decisions.” That sounds like a hidden complement to me. He is implying that a Las Vegas trip is a great experience, but one that must be postponed in order to achieve goals of greater significance.

Sorry, Mayor Goodman, but your knee-jerk reaction will keep Las Vegas from not only not getting corporate bailout money flowing through Las Vegas casinos, but the city will not be getting the president’s personal income, also known as “our tax dollars at play,” either.

In summary, what is the ultimate impact of Pres. Obama’s allegedly anti-Las Vegas statement? I think the ultimate outcome will be negligible. Those that want to go to Vegas will still find a way to go. Those that were not planning on visiting will not. Those on the fence needed the financial advice anyway, and what Pres. Obama gave was solid.

On the other hand, this event might actually help Sin City-- Pres. Obama is suffering in the popularity polls, so the public might deliberately do the opposite of his suggestions.

It would be an ironic twist, to be sure.

Well, until next time…