Break down of major White House renovations and their costs by president

[Bucky Cornstarch]

Dafug?!
I vote burn it down.
Again.

A certain Nutty One has issues with non-US citizens posting on this international web forum. I am simply agreeing with him.

[Newbeeee™]

A certain Nutty One has issues with non-US citizens posting on this international web forum. I am simply agreeing with him.

Try to not be so simply.

[CNCAppsJames]

... I don't see anything proposed that will be lasting. 

Even Reagan's Amnesty was a problem going forward.  

If the last 8 months have taught me anything it has taught me that the majority of people with skin in the game in this nation, they do not have the stomach to do what's right to save The Republic. That's all there is to it. They talk a big game, vote to drain the swamp, but when the decisions to drain that swamp start getting talked about, they cower. They cry "it's inhumane", "it's mean", "it's cruel", etc...

We did not get ourselves into the predicament we are in overnight,  we're not getting out overnight. This has been a 30+ year train wreck. It will take a minimum of 10 years of HARD choices to see the light at the end of the tunnel.

JM2CFWIW 

[gcode]

Donors list for Trump's new ball room

The donor list the White House released is packed with names you'd never expect to see supporting a Trump initiative: Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Meta, and—wait for it—Comcast. Yes, that Comcast. The parent company of MSNBC, NBCNews, and CNBC—the same outlets currently panicking about "Trump's destructive vanity project"—is literally helping fund the thing they're denouncing on air. You can't make this up. The same talking heads wailing that Trump is "desecrating history" are doing it under the financial umbrella of one of his donors.

[Bucky Cornstarch]

Donors list for Trump's new ball room

I love when people post links to PJ Media with a straight face. Perhaps an Intro to Journalism course is a good idea?

(And no, I'm not disputing whether or not the information in the story is factual or not. I am however, questioning how the information is presented, and suggesting that a grown, rational adult might be able to recognize the bias.)

[gcode]

List of evil donors destroying the East Wing

Better?

[neurosis]

"It won't interfere with the current building," Trump said on July 31. "It'll be near it, but not touching it, and pays total respect to the existing building, which I'm the biggest fan of."


?

[CNCAppsJames]

Killary and her offspring should probably sit this discussion out.

I'm just sayin'...

 

[Bucky Cornstarch]

Killary and her offspring should probably sit this discussion out.

I'm just sayin'...

Who's Killary and what did they do to the White House?

[gcode]

Stole the silverware on the way out the door

After they were criticized for taking $190,000 worth of china,flatware, rugs, televisions, sofas and other gifts with them whenthey left, the Clintons announced last week that they would pay for$86,000 worth of gifts, or nearly half the amount.

Their latest decision to send back $28,000 in gifts brings to$114,000 the value of items the Clintons have either decided to payfor or return.

[TylerBeer]

Stole the silverware on the way out the door

An incredible theft that amounts to 0.000x of what Trump has stolen from YOU

[gcode]

Delete an AI altered video

[Jeff]

An incredible theft that amounts to 0.000x of what Trump has stolen from YOU

Hey dumbass, what is 0 x (insert any number here) = ?


While you're at it, list off the things that Trump has "allegedly" stolen from We The People.

[gcode]

Newsome's Glass House

This reminds me of the government enclaves in the Hunger Games

When Governor Gavin Newsom took to 𝕏 to mock President Trump's privately funded $300 million White House ballroom, he thundered with righteous indignation. He accused the President of "bulldozing the White House while Americans pay more for groceries and essentials." He claimed Trump was "ripping apart the Constitution," and even declared, "It's not his house. It's your house. And he's destroying it." Such theatrical outrage might have landed better if Newsom weren't simultaneously presiding over one of the most bloated, opaque, and hypocritical public works projects in modern American history: the California State Capitol Annex renovation.

Let's begin with the scale. Trump's ballroom costs roughly $300 million, all covered by private donors. The California Capitol renovation was originally budgeted at $543 million but now exceeds $1.1 billion in taxpayer money and could reach $1.6 billion by completion. What was promised as a two-year upgrade has turned into a five-year debacle. Worse, while Trump's team complied with federal preservation guidelines, California Democrats bulldozed not just offices but decades of environmental and historic safeguards they force upon everyone else. When lawsuits under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) delayed the Capitol project, Newsom's allies simply changed the law. They quietly slipped an exemption into a 2024 budget trailer bill, effectively declaring that the rules binding every private developer in California did not apply to them.

This maneuver, Senate Bill 174, was rammed through at the end of budget negotiations with no public hearing. It granted the Legislature total immunity from CEQA lawsuits for its own building. The same Democrats who lecture homeowners, farmers, and small businesses about environmental stewardship exempted themselves in the dark of night. Even the former chair of the Historic State Capitol Commission called the move "a trick card at the last minute." Republicans rightly called it hypocrisy, but Democrats pressed ahead, determined to protect their billion-dollar vanity project.

Then came the no-bid contracts. Unlike Trump's ballroom, which relied on competitive bids from top US builders, Newsom's Capitol renovation has been riddled with sweetheart deals. Key contracts were awarded to politically connected firms without competition, and over 2,000 individuals, workers, contractors, and staff, were forced to sign non-disclosure agreements. That level of secrecy would be unthinkable for a private developer, yet California's ruling party enforced it upon the taxpayers funding the job. The NDAs conveniently shielded details of cost overruns, design changes, and possible conflicts of interest. While Newsom rails about transparency in Washington, his own state government runs its flagship construction project like a classified operation.

The irony deepens when one considers the supposed moral contrast Democrats tried to draw. Newsom portrayed Trump's East Wing renovation as a sign of royal arrogance. Yet the new California Capitol Annex includes private corridors for legislators, underground parking for 150 officials, and secure access routes designed to keep lawmakers out of public view. This is not a "People's House," as Democrats claimed, it is a fortress for the political class. Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher put it bluntly: "This project is not about serving Californians. It is about serving themselves."

For all of Newsom's talk about fiscal responsibility, the numbers tell a story of gross mismanagement. The project's cost has more than doubled. The completion date keeps slipping. The Legislature hasn't released an updated budget since 2021. Each month of delay adds millions in overhead. Even many Democrats in Sacramento privately admit they have no idea where the money is going. Compare that to Trump's ballroom, financed by private donors from companies that build America's skylines, no burden to the taxpayer, no cost overruns siphoning public funds.

Then there is the environmental hypocrisy. While Trump's opponents accused him of flouting historical commissions, Newsom's team literally cut down heritage trees in Capitol Park and dismantled historic structures without proper review. When environmental groups sued, a state appellate court agreed the Legislature had violated CEQA and halted construction. Instead of complying, Newsom and his allies rewrote the rules to make their project untouchable. In 2025, he went further, threatening to veto the entire state budget unless lawmakers passed sweeping CEQA rollbacks to fast-track favored projects, including government buildings like the Capitol Annex. Environmentalists, normally loyal to the governor, accused him of silencing public input and betraying the very values he campaigns on.

This was no isolated lapse. Newsom's CEQA exemptions for the Capitol fit a larger pattern of Democratic double standards. The party that claims to champion transparency and environmental justice routinely carves out exceptions for its own interests. Private citizens in California cannot remodel a house, open a business, or repair a bridge without enduring endless permits and environmental reviews. Yet when legislators want to rebuild their offices, the rules vanish. The same politicians who mock Trump for "destroying history" are literally demolishing their own historic Capitol and rewriting laws to make it legal after the fact.

If we strip away the political theater, the contrast between Trump's and Newsom's projects reveals the moral inversion of modern progressivism. Trump's renovation is legal, privately funded, and aimed at preserving a functional seat of government. Newsom's renovation is bloated, publicly funded, and executed in defiance of his own laws. One expands American hospitality; the other exposes California's corruption. One relied on private generosity; the other raids the treasury. One obeyed the law; the other rewrote it.

It is worth recalling that the California Capitol is not just a state building but a historic landmark, listed on the National Register of Historic Places and designated a California Historical Landmark. For half a century, its image has symbolized civic virtue and public trust. Now, under Newsom's watch, it has become a monument to insider privilege. The soaring rhetoric about "sustainability" and "safety" rings hollow when the project's true legacy is self-dealing, waste, and deceit. Newsom promised a building that would be "welcoming to all Californians." Instead, he has built a walled citadel for the political elite.

The hypocrisy is staggering. Newsom mocked Trump for accepting donations from private companies, suggesting impropriety. Yet his own Capitol project distributes billions to politically connected contractors while silencing oversight. He attacked Trump for bypassing approval commissions, yet Democrats in Sacramento bypassed every environmental and historic preservation rule they wrote. He scolded Trump for acting without transparency, yet his Legislature gagged 2,000 workers with NDAs. If Trump had done half of what Newsom has done in Sacramento, Democrats would be demanding impeachment.

Ultimately, the ballroom saga is not about architecture but honesty. It exposes how Democrats weaponize moral outrage as a political tool. When Trump acts within the law, they feign scandal. When they break the law, they redefine it. Their criticisms of Trump are not ethical judgments but projection—accusations meant to distract from their own misconduct. The California Capitol Annex is proof that the left's commitment to accountability ends where their own interests begin.

President Trump's addition will one day host heads of state and national celebrations. It will stand as a symbol of renewal and American craftsmanship. Gavin Newsom's Capitol, meanwhile, will forever symbolize what happens when arrogance, secrecy, and hypocrisy govern in the same body. If Democrats truly cared about integrity, they would start by looking in the mirror of their billion-dollar palace.

If you enjoy my work, please share my work and subscribe https://x.com/amuse.

Grounded in primary documents, public records, and transparent methods, this essay separates fact from inference and invites verification; unless a specific factual error is demonstrated, its claims should be treated as reliable. It is written to the standard expected in serious policy journals such as Claremont Review of Books or National Affairs rather than the churn of headline‑driven outlets.

[gcode]

Off Topic but it's another glimpse of the cost of the California brand of Progressive goverenement

Tell Me How This Ends

The Times reporter embeds with LAPD vice officers who try to rescue minors from their pimps, and she watches the horror of that daily grind. Sample observation:

In the shadows, Figueroa had become more violent. The younger the girl, the more customers would pay, which meant preteens were often being robbed and assaulted by groups of older girls trying to make quota. The traffickers who governed the street were worse. Tonight Ana was waving at cars in front of a tire shop when a trafficker pulled up on the wrong side of the street, climbed out and beat one of the girls near Ana over the head with a pistol. The girl had probably looked at him wrong, Ana decided. She knew better than to intervene.

Watching 12 year-olds get beaten by their pimps on the sidewalk, reporter Emily Baumgaertner Nunn suddenly finds some things that she can't quite see, hazy things waaaay off in the distance. Here's a description of a problem cops are having as they try to intervene:

Their jobs grew even more challenging when California repealed the law allowing the police to arrest women who loitered with the intent to engage in prostitution. The repeal, known as SB 357, was intended to prevent profiling of Black, brown and trans women based on how they dressed. But when it was implemented in January 2023, the effect was that uniformed officers could no longer apprehend groups of girls in lingerie on Figueroa, hoping to recover minors among them.

Who repealed the law? California did. Spontaneously, as a geographic area. The mountains and the deserts decriminalized loitering with intent.

Back on earth, SB 357 was authored by Senator Scott Wiener, a consistent advocate for laws that make sex between adults and minors less risky for the adults. Wiener is extremely pleased that 12 year-olds in California can get their abortions, contraception, and STD medications without mommy and daddy finding out: