Ideological earmarks litter spending bill; vanity portraits for Congress nixed

Language in spending bill prevents ending Saturday mail delivery

Story Topics
Question of the Day

Is it still considered bad form to talk politics during a social gathering?

View results

Congress‘ spending bill funds the National Endowment for the Arts, but one art project finally is getting cut off: the official portrait paintings of presidents, Cabinet secretaries and high-ranking members of Congress.

For the first time, the bill bans taxpayer money from financing official portrait paintings, many of which can’t even be viewed by the public. That is one of a number of “policy riders” that negotiators attached to the massive bill, most designed to tweak Obama administration policies on items including coal and incandescent light bulbs.

Call them ideological earmarks — the provisions House Republicans demanded to garner enough conservative votes to pass the bill.

A decade ago, those votes would have been earned by old-style earmarks — the pork-barrel projects in a lawmaker’s state or district. With those earmarks essentially banned, leaders earn votes by giving lawmakers ideology-based talking points to take back home.

“Instead of saying, ‘Hey, it’s the best we could get,’ you can go back to voters and say we got a bunch of good stuff in this, it’s positive, it’s moving in the right direction,” said Michael McKenna, a Republican strategist who predicted that the practice will increase. “This is a foreshadowing. When the Republicans take the Senate, this is going to become a fairly routine feature of life.”

The House and Senate are rushing to pass the $1.1 trillion bill this week, ahead of a self-imposed deadline when government funding expires.

Unlike October, when ideological battles over Obamacare led to a government shutdown, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are looking for reasons to vote for the deal.

The agreement implements last month’s budget deal, eliminating some of the sequester budget cuts and expanding funding for defense, which Republicans wanted, and for domestic programs, which Democrats fought to keep.

“As with any compromise, not everyone will like everything in this bill, but in this divided government a critical bill such as this simply cannot reflect the wants of only one party,” said Rep. Nita M. Lowey of New York, the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee. “We believe this is a good, workable measure that will serve the American people well, and we encourage all our colleagues to support it this week.”

President Obama offered support Tuesday, issuing a statement of administration policy saying he wants “swift passage.”

The taxpayer funding for portraits has become an issue in recent years after The Washington Times and other news outlets reported about the high costs of some of the paintings and found that they often aren’t even available for public viewing.

In 2013, the federal government signed contracts for at least $200,000 worth of portraits, including $25,000 for a painting of the Treasury Department secretary and $40,500 for a portrait of the Marine Corps commandant.

Rep. Bill Cassidy, a Louisiana Republican who sponsored what he called the EGO Act, or Eliminating Government-funded Oil paintings Act, said it was about time Congress acted.

“American taxpayers shouldn’t be called to sacrifice to pay for vanity paintings which are often hidden from the public,” he said. “This is a waste of money that is rightly being eliminated.”

Among the other riders attached to the spending bill are:

Story Continues →

View Entire Story

© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Comments
blog comments powered by Disqus
TWT Video Picks