Friday, December 13, 2013

I Swear, These People Still Don't Get IT!

 Senators Introduce Bill to Crack Down on 'Lavish' Portraits 
Fox News - 
"A bipartisan Senate duo says they want to crack down on what they call the government’s “lavish” spending on oil paintings of congressmen, the costs of which can top $50,000 each. 
Sens. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., and Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said in a Thursday press release they are introducing a bill that would only allow $20,000 of taxpayer funds to be spent on each portrait, and would only cover paintings of lawmakers in the line of succession to the presidency."
Hillary Clinton Sits for Secretary Of State Portrait in 2010
“At a time when vital services and programs are facing cuts, we need to be looking at every way we can stop excessive spending practices in Washington,” Shaheen said.
Coburn says their bill is a way to rein in excess spending in Washington, and ensure taxpayers are not paying for unnecessary projects. 
“Hardworking taxpayers shouldn’t foot the bill for lavish official portraits, especially when government officials spend more on paintings of themselves than some Americans make in a year,” Coburn said. 
ABC News reported earlier this year that the Obama administration spent nearly $400,000 on paintings of officials in just a two-year- period, and the Washington Post reported in 2008 each portrait can sometimes cost over $40,000.   The bill would allow other funds to be spent on the portraits after the taxpayer funds were exhausted."

Excuse Me!  $20,000 of  taxpayer money on a portrait of a congressman? These are elected public servants, not royalty!

And who the hell is painting these things for $50,000. A 300 dollar 40x60 digital photo print should suffice in the case of congress. And come to think of it, there can be additional savings when it can also later be used as an official mugshot when they are impeached or indicted after leaving office....

Most of our elected officials of both parties need a good ol' fashion 'Coming to Jesus Moment' before next November. 

1 comment:

  1. I see nothing wrong with a congressman having a portrait painted ... AS LONG AS HE PAYS FOR IT OUT OF HIS OWN POCKET!