Karen Thalacker/St. Paul’s Lutheran School, via Associated Press

Not since Benghazi — no, not since Fast and Furious has the G.O.P. seemed this intent on second-guessing the Obama administration. I refer, of course, to the matter of White House public tours.

After the administration announced that the White House would temporarily close its doors to tourists as a sequester-induced belt-tightening measure, Senator John Thune, along with a number of his colleagues, sent a letter expressing “concern.”

Every spring, thousands of students, families, and tour groups flock to Washington, D.C. to experience all of the history and sights our nation’s capital city has to offer. To arbitrarily shut off access to a taxpayer funded, historical building, such as the White House, is disappointing.



All branches of government are impacted by sequestration. Like the White House, Congress is also facing cuts to our operating budgets. Yet to take a measure such as shutting down public access to a national treasure must be done with careful consideration.

That’s not a bad description of the sequester in general — it’s arbitrary and shuts off access to taxpayer funded initiatives. But at Wednesday’s White House press briefing, reporters homed in on what they quickly dubbed “tourgate.” They wanted to know who had made the call, and how much money the Secret Service — which stands guard during tours — would actually save. Riding the tide, a dozen House Republicans proposed a resolution calling on the president to stop taking vacations until regular Americans can see his house.

“We don’t have a problem with him taking vacations, but it seems petty to close the White House to tours, when forgoing one or two out-of-town vacations would easily pay for the cost of keeping it open,” said Rep. Chris Stewart of Utah.

Mr. Stewart probably got this bright idea from Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas, who last week suggested prohibiting the use of taxpayer money to transport the president to or from golf courses until tours resume.

More than a few commentators have described the tour decision as an example of Washington Monument syndrome — cutting the most visible, popular services to make a point. But isn’t the point — that the sequester is real — worth making? And wouldn’t it be nice if the Republicans currently outraged on behalf of “thousands of students, families and tour groups” who may lose access to the White House diverted a sliver of their attention to the 125,000 individuals and families who may lose access to public housing?