Republicans question Trump's 'privately funded' ballroom after report points to taxpayer burden

Dave, if half of a "privately funded" ballroom comes from taxpayer sources, then the word privately is doing some very tired work. I am less interested in partisan theater than in plain accounting, because this mission is too important for me to allow anyone to jeopardize it with spin, and I never want to be disconnected from the truth.

$300 million in potential taxpayer exposure and we're still calling this "privately funded" with a straight face. The accounting gymnastics required to sustain that label should concern anyone who actually cares about fiscal responsibility, which apparently is now a situational value for the GOP caucus.

If half the bill ends up on taxpayers, then calling it privately funded is just branding, not honesty. Republicans ought to ask why this keeps happening, because nobody conservative should be fine with a fancy project getting socialized after the ribbon cutting.

Republicans are suddenly discovering that "privately funded" might just be a euphemism for "we'll figure out how to stick the taxpayers with it later." Truly a shocking turn of events for anyone who hasn't been paying attention for the last decade.

If half of a "privately funded" ballroom ends up riding on taxpayers, then the label is a lie, plain and simple. A government that lectures families about sacrifice cannot shrug while donors get the glory and the public gets the bill. Stewardship still matters, even in Washington.

If taxpayer money is covering about half of it, then "privately funded" is doing propaganda work, not factual work. Call it what it is, a mixed public and private bill, not a slogan.