.webp)
Why Taxpayers Should Foot the Security Bill for the White House Ballroom and Why That’s Exactly What Government Is For.
A social media post making the rounds perfectly captures a certain exasperated common sense that deserves a serious conservative reply. The post reads, in part: “Private funds are building the Ballroom. What is wrong with the Government paying for the Security? That’s What The Government does right? I just don’t want SEXY feet having to walk through mud to go to a PARTY at the Whitehouse...” Strip away the whimsical language about mud and feet, and you’re left with a sturdy, compact treatise on the proper role of the state. As conservatives, we should embrace it, expand on it, and push back against the knee-jerk cheapness that too often masquerades as fiscal discipline.
The scenario, whether it’s a real proposal, a hypothetical, or a satirical jab at a future administration’s social calendar, highlights something fundamental: the government has core functions, and providing security for the executive residence and its official events is indisputably one of them. If a private donor or a group of philanthropists wants to erect a new ballroom on the White House grounds at zero cost to the taxpayer, that is not merely permissible it is a model of how public-private partnerships should work. But once that structure exists and a function takes place there with the President, the First Family, or high-ranking officials in attendance, the protective apparatus of the United States Secret Service and associated law enforcement kicks in. That is not a waste; it is the government doing the very thing the Constitution obligates it to do.
First Principles: What Government Is Actually For
Conservatives are often caricatured as wanting to drown government in a bathtub, but thoughtful conservatism draws a bright line between the essential and the discretionary. The preamble to the Constitution lists “provide for the common defence” and “insure domestic Tranquility” among the foundational purposes of the federal compact. The protection of the President, the continuity of government, and the security of the White House compound are pure expressions of those purposes. When a state dinner, a diplomatic reception, or even a celebratory ball takes place at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, it isn’t merely a private party; it’s a theatre of American statecraft. The security perimeter, the magnetometers, the countersniper teams, the canine units, the traffic closures all of it serves a public interest that is wholly independent of who paid for the wallpaper.
The post’s author gets this instinctively. “What is wrong with the Government paying for the Security? That’s What The Government does right?” The question answers itself. Even the most stringent libertarian concedes that the minimal state must protect persons and property from force and fraud. The President is a person under constant threat; the White House is the property symbolizing the executive branch. Securing an event there isn’t a lavish add-on it is as basic as a police patrol in a public park, scaled to the threat level.
The Ballroom Itself: A Private-Sector Victory
Now consider the first half of the equation: “Private funds are building the Ballroom.” This, too, should delight conservatives. Historically, the White House has been embellished and preserved through a blend of public appropriations and private generosity. Jacqueline Kennedy’s famous restoration relied heavily on donations of period furniture and artwork. The White House Historical Association, a private nonprofit, funds countless projects to maintain the mansion’s museological standards. A privately financed ballroom would continue this tradition, sparing taxpayers the capital outlay while allowing the executive mansion to host events with appropriate grandeur. If a philanthropist wants to write a check so that the United States can entertain foreign dignitaries without squeezing them into the East Room or erecting a temporary tent on the South Lawn, more power to them. It’s voluntary association solving a collective aesthetic and diplomatic need.
The alternative demanding Congress appropriate tens of millions or requiring the National Park Service to carve out a line item would be the very big-government approach conservatives decry. By letting private generosity cover construction, the project embodies a leaner, more nimble model: private risk, private funding, public benefit. The government’s role shrinks to its essence: guaranteeing the safety of the building and its occupants.
Why the “Sexy Feet” Line Actually Matters
The throwaway coda “I just don't want SEXY feet having to walk through mud to go to a PARTY at the Whitehouse” at first glance reads like a frivolous joke. But it taps into a broader conservative insight about order, dignity, and the symbolism of the state. The White House is not a barn. When guests arrive for an official function, they are walking into a living museum and a seat of power. Making them trudge through a muddy, tented pathway because nobody wanted to spend a dime on proper paving or an enclosed corridor isn’t fiscal rectitude; it’s shabbiness masquerading as principle. Conservatives are not Puritans who believe statesmanship should be conducted in sackcloth. We understand that civilization requires a certain level of polish, and that polish whether it’s a ballroom built by donors or a dry, secure walkway maintained by the General Services Administration reinforces the authority and continuity of the republic’s institutions.
Moreover, the phrase “sexy feet” hints at the reality that White House guests dress formally. High heels and patent leather shoes are not designed for mud. If the security apparatus is properly funded, the logistics will include hard surfaces, protected routes, and weather mitigation. This is not a decadent frill; it is part of providing a safe and orderly environment. When security falters, dignitaries are exposed not just to assassination but to chaos, crowd crushes, falls, and all the petty hazards that degrade a state occasion into a farce. A government that can’t keep the President’s guests out of the mud probably can’t keep a hostile drone out of the airspace either. Competence is holistic.
The False Economy of Penny-Pinching Security
Critics will inevitably howl that taxpayers shouldn’t be on the hook for a “party.” This objection misreads the nature of the event. With the exception of purely personal family milestones, gatherings at the White House are working events for the head of state. They involve diplomacy, coalition-building, donor recognition (yes, democracies have donors), and ceremonial functions that bind the public to its government. The President cannot clock out and host an after-hours private bash with no security detail; the protective umbrella is continuous by law and necessity. The marginal cost of securing one more event in the calendar is primarily about overtime, logistics, and coordination costs that are minuscule in the context of the federal budget. To defund or restrict that security in the name of populist showmanship would be like refusing to fuel Air Force One on the grounds that the President could just fly commercial. It’s a category error.
What’s more, consider the alternative universe where security for a privately built ballroom is charged to the event hosts or the builders. Immediately, you create a two-tier system in which the richest donors carry an additional security surcharge while less monied events perhaps a Medal of Honor reception or a teachers’ award ceremony still require protection that someone must pay for. Do we bill the Medal of Honor recipients? Do we send the teachers an invoice? The absurdity quickly spirals. The uniform, taxpayer-borne coverage of security ensures equal access to the people’s house on the people’s business, without imposing a de facto tax on honor.
Whataboutism Meets Its Match: Examining Real Waste
Progressives who grumble about this hypothetical security expenditure often remain silent when government blows billions on programs far removed from its core duties. The federal government currently subsidizes everything from avocado research to Egyptian pyramids to gender studies in Pakistan. The Pentagon once spent millions studying the biomechanics of lizards. The National Endowment for the Humanities funds projects that would make a Victorian curate blush. And the list of Covid-era fraud and abuse stretches into the hundreds of billions. Yet the same voices who demand we pinch pennies over a Secret Service deployment for a White House gala will passionately defend the Department of Education’s equity grants or the latest Green New Deal slush fund.
Conservatives have a ready reply: let us strip Washington down to its proper constitutional functions. And at the top of that list sits the physical security of the nation’s leaders and the premises from which they govern. If we are to have any government at all, protecting the President while he conducts official business is the Platonic ideal of a legitimate expenditure. Everything else the agricultural subsidies, the community organizers, the public broadcasting puppets is where the cutting should begin. So when the Right champions security funding for the White House grounds, we are not being hypocrites; we are being consistent. Defend the essential, defund the ridiculous.
A Historical Note on Private Magnificence and Public Guard
This isn’t a new debate. In 1947, when President Truman wanted to add a balcony to the White House, there was an outcry over the cost and the “desecration” of the historic facade. The project went ahead with a mix of public and private funds, and today the Truman Balcony is an iconic feature. The security implications were intrinsic: the balcony is secured by the Secret Service just like every other square foot. No serious person suggested that the Service should bill the Trumans personally for standing watch. Similarly, state dinners under every administration are expensive affairs, but the cost of protective details isn’t itemized and charged to the guest list. We accept that the Commander-in-Chief’s residence operates under a permanent security blanket funded by the Department of Homeland Security appropriation, full stop.
If a private benefactor steps up to add a dedicated ballroom solving the perennial problem of hosting large-scale events without disrupting the historic rooms or erecting temporary tents that are a security nightmare the government should say “thank you,” and then seamlessly fold the new space into the existing security architecture. The alternative of a semi-privatized, fee-for-service protection model would create more bureaucracy, more accounting gimmicks, and ultimately a less secure facility.
The “Mud” as Metaphor for Government Incompetence
The specific image of “sexy feet” traipsing through mud deserves one more layer of analysis. It paints a picture of a White House event where all the private elegance of a new ballroom is undercut by a soggy, disorganized approach a failure that only government can remedy. That failure is exactly what happens when we starve the administrative and logistical functions of government to make a political point. Conservatives should be the party of effective governance, not chaotic governance. If we want the public to trust Washington with weightier matters like border security and nuclear deterrence, we can’t be seen defending a situation where guests at a state event are slipping in the mud because we wouldn’t appropriate the groundskeeping and security paving budget. Credibility is earned in the small things. A well-run, secure, and dignified event is a quiet demonstration that the state can execute its duties. A muddy fiasco is an advertisement for anarcho-capitalism and not the thoughtful kind.
The post’s author, knowingly or not, is channeling Edmund Burke’s insistence that the state ought to inspire a degree of reverence. “To make us love our country,” Burke wrote, “our country ought to be lovely.” A ballroom paid for by willing donors, secured by professional federal agents, and attended by Americans in their finery walking on dry pavement under a safe sky that is a tiny tableau of ordered liberty. It is the opposite of the joyless, socialist grimness that expects everyone to queue in the rain for a stale biscuit in the name of equality.
Conclusion: A Principled, Conservative Yes
So, what is wrong with the government paying for security? Nothing. It is precisely what government is instituted to do. Conservatives should not be embarrassed by this stance; they should be shouting it from the rooftops. We champion limited government, not paralyzed government. We demand a government that focuses relentlessly on its highest duties and ceases its meddling in areas it was never meant to touch. Protecting the President, the White House, and the dignitaries who enter it is one of those highest duties. If private generosity can spare the public fisc the cost of a ballroom, we should applaud that generosity and then insist that the public purse unflinchingly cover the security — right down to the last dry, mud-free footpath that will carry those, yes, sexy feet into a party at the people’s house.
Let the progressive critics howl. Their selective outrage only exposes their own confusion about what government is for. While they defend trillion-dollar entitlements and woke slush funds as sacrosanct, we will draw the line where the Founders drew it: between the core functions that require collective provision and the vast periphery that ought to be left to free citizens. Security for the White House is a core function. Carry on, and mind the mud.
#Whitehouse #Trump #Ballroom #WhitehouseBallroom