Picture This: Tax Dollars May Again Fund Official Portraits

The congressional ban on the practice was temporary, but two lawmakers are proposing a solution.

Former President George W. Bush and his wife Laura Bush look at their official White House portraits during an unveiling ceremony in the East Room at the White House in Washington on May 31, 2012. 
National Journal
Billy House
See more stories about...
Billy House
May 19, 2014, 5:08 p.m.

It’s be­ing called a more “re­spons­ible” use of fed­er­al dol­lars for com­mem­or­ative por­traits of gov­ern­ment of­fi­cials. At least, that’s the name of the bill.

Turns out, the much-bal­ly­hooed ban on tax­pay­er-fun­ded por­traits of the pres­id­ent and oth­er pub­lic of­fi­cials that passed earli­er this year was not per­man­ent. The om­ni­bus fisc­al 2014 spend­ing bill did deny funds for com­mem­or­ative por­traits — but just for the fisc­al year.

On Wed­nes­day, however, the Sen­ate Home­land Se­cur­ity and Gov­ern­ment­al Af­fairs Com­mit­tee is set to con­sider le­gis­la­tion to com­pletely stop the prac­tice. Well, for most por­traits, any­way.

The Bi­par­tis­an Re­spons­ible Use of Tax­pay­er Dol­lars for Por­traits Act, pushed by Sens. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., and Tom Coburn, R-Okla., would per­man­ently cap the amount of tax­pay­er ex­pendit­ures for such por­traits at $20,000. And the bill would lim­it even that amount to por­traits of people in the of­fi­cial line of suc­ces­sion to the pres­id­ency, such as the vice pres­id­ent, House speak­er, pres­id­ent pro tem of the Sen­ate, sec­ret­ary of State, and oth­er top of­fi­cials in ex­ec­ut­ive de­part­ments.

“There’s no reas­on to con­tin­ue ex­cess­ive tax­pay­er spend­ing on oil paint­ings of gov­ern­ment of­fi­cials,” Shaheen said Monday in a state­ment.

Most mem­bers of Con­gress and oth­er ex­ec­ut­ive-branch agency heads would not qual­i­fy.

The bill would not, however, ban the use of non­fed­er­al funds to help pay for the paint­ings if the costs ex­ceed $20,000.

Con­tro­versy over use of tax­pay­er dol­lars for com­mem­or­ative por­traits has ex­is­ted for years. But amid de­fi­cits and spend­ing cuts, the is­sue has gained more at­ten­tion. For in­stance, a re­view by The Wash­ing­ton Times found that the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment spent $180,000 on of­fi­cial por­traits in 2012. The En­vir­on­ment­al Pro­tec­tion Agency spent nearly $40,000 on a por­trait of then-Ad­min­is­trat­or Lisa Jack­son; the Air Force spent $41,200 on a por­trait of then-Sec­ret­ary Mi­chael Don­ley; and the Ag­ri­cul­ture De­part­ment spent $22,500 on a por­trait of Sec­ret­ary Tom Vil­sack, ac­cord­ing to The Times.

“We should pay for these types of por­traits in a way that pro­tects tax­pay­ers in­stead of wast­ing their money,” Shaheen said.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
8 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
8 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
8 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
8 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
9 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×