July 15th, 2006 by herichon
Earlier this week, the Chicago Tribune posted an article discussing Rahm Emanuel’s critique of the Bush administration’s fiscal responsibiltiy in general, and specifically paying $100k a year for a “White House Director of Lessons Learned”.
His remarks were entirely appropriate, I thought, but I was angered to see that there was one comment posted in response:
I find it ironic that Rahm Emanuel giving the White House pointers on anything. Two of his employers, the Daley administration and Clinton administration have had more ethical lapses, investigations, indictments and convictions against them he should be more worried about the democrat’s ethical lapses.Also, the Democrats have made wasteful and fraudulant government spending an artform.
While the Bush administration could certainly do a much, much better job on the spending front, I think the extremely large staffs of all Congressmen could be cut—BIG TIME, and earmark programs for all conressman done away with.
Somehow I think ole’ Rahmmy wouldn’t be for any of those!!
Posted by: John D | Jul 12, 2006 11:31:22 AM
Now this is such a typically misleading Republican response that it’s practically begging for somebody to call bullshit on it. Inexplicably, though, while the comment link is present, trying to write and submit a response results in the message “Comments are not allowed on this entry.” Well, Trib, clearly you allowed one comment, right? I suppose it may be that comments are disallowed after a few days, but it’s only been three days, after all. This doesn’t make much sense, and it’s worrisome that one of the biggest papers in the Midwest would allow one comment only, intended to discredit the comments by Mr. Emanuel, and no others.
My comment in response might not have been posted anyway – after all comments are screened before being posted, and I certainly might not have made the cut. But for posterity’s sake (and perhaps anyone that happens to Google the issue for more information) I’ll include it here.
John D: your remarks typify everything that’s wrong with the current administration. Rather than address the issue, you attack the messenger. See also: recent attacks on the NYT and other media outlets for disclosing government intrusion into public privacy. See also: the outing of Valerie Plame in relatiation for Joe Wilson’s accurate but unwelcome public remarks regarding discrepancies in Bush’s prewar intelligence. See also: nearly every cynical piece of spin that comes out of Karl Rove’s office.Rather than specifically address any of Emanuel’s points, you attack Daley (Democrat), and Clinton (Democrat), and indirectly Emanuel himself (Democrat), and of course Democrats in general. You don’t give any specifics, but folks like you rarely do – it’s easier to throw a little mud on the enemy, so you don’t look so dirty in comparison and the issue becomes more muddy in general. That way, those who aren’t so much interested in thinking that hard (ie, the current Republican power base) have an easier time dismissing statements like Emanuel’s altogether.
I agree that the there’s money that could and should be saved in general Congressional staffing and operating expenses, and that earmarking and political pork in general are at an all time high. But I also know two things – one, that since Congress is currently controlled by Republicans, your statement only shifts the blame from the Bush administration in particular to Republican Washington in general. And two, if you really want to talk about wasteful government spending, let’s discuss the $437 billion dollars that our misadventures in Iraq are costing us (per the most recent report from the Congressional Research Service). Whatever Congress is paying its staffers at any given time is a tiny, tiny drop in the bucket compared to the continuing costs of Iraq. And those numbers don’t even take into consideration the incalculable cost in human lives and suffering incurred on both sides, nor do they include indirect war-related expenses like veteran’s benefits, military rebuilding and recruiting, and much more. In fact, government spending – and the corresponding deficit – are higher than ever before, and at the same time, Bush continues to push through some of the biggest tax cuts in history. Does that sound like fiscal responsibility to you?
If it’s really your contention that fraud and wastefulness under Democrats are so blatant and of such magnitude as to completely eclipse Emanuel’s points, please provide some hard numbers to support that position. In the meantime, though I will continue to believe that his points are spot on and hope that this kind of questioning continues until we see better accounting AND accountability at all levels of government.