By MARSHA MERCER
A perk of being a
Washington bigwig is to be immortalized the old-fashioned way -- in an oil painting
paid for by taxpayers.
The official portrait of
former CIA Director Leon E. Panetta was unveiled Sept. 5 at the CIA, where a
Directors Gallery honors every chief since the first in 1946.
What made Panetta’s
painting different from his predecessors’ and most, if not all, the hundreds of
official portraits on walls around Washington was his decision to be painted
with his dog, Bravo.
Panetta, who served as CIA
director from February 2009 to June 2011, has said his golden retriever was in
the room during some of his toughest moments, such as planning the operation to
kill Osama bin Laden in May 2011.
In the portrait, a
smiling Panetta has both hands on his pet, making him look more like a genial
professor than the spook who took out Public Enemy No. 1. The picture elicits
appreciative “awws” from pet lovers, but it also raises a question:
Is an official portrait
– even of a distinguished public servant like Panetta -- a good use of your tax
dollars?
Taxpayers spent $300,000
last year alone on oil portraits of senior officials, reports “Wastebook 2013,”
the annual compendium of wasteful federal spending published by Sen. Tom
Coburn, R-Okla.
The price tag of the
CIA’s portrait of Panetta wasn’t disclosed. But if one picture is worth the
cost, whatever it is, how about two? Of the same person?
Panetta served eight
terms in Congress and was President Bill Clinton’s chief of staff. After his
stint at the CIA, he was secretary of defense from July 2011 to February 2013.
So, naturally, the Defense Department commissioned a Panetta portrait last year
for its Pentagon Collection.
I say naturally because over
the last decade the Defense Department has ordered 25 of at least 69 official
portraits purchased by government agencies, according to “Wastebook.”
The Defense Department
contracted to spend $31,200 on its Panetta painting, which hasn’t been unveiled
yet. The sum is infinitesimal in the Defense budget, but it’s real money to
many Americans who have no say how their taxes are spent.
Don’t get me wrong. I
love portraits, especially those that give us a glimpse of the subject’s personality. Generations of school children might have no idea
what George Washington looked like were it not for artist Gilbert Stuart. There’s still a place for portraiture in the 21st
century.
But as often is the
case, the government is being free with other people’s (our) money. An official
portrait shouldn’t be the default honor for a departing agency head.
In October 2012,
then-Defense Secretary Panetta presided over the ceremonial unveiling of the
official portrait of former Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. Speaking that
day, Gates mentioned that the same artist had painted the official portrait of
“a certain CIA director” two decades earlier.
“It didn’t seem all that
different, a few pounds lighter, maybe a couple of inches taller. The hair a
more useful shade of white,” Gates said, drawing laughter. He was CIA director
from 1991 to 1993.
“A sure sign you’ve been
in Washington too long,” Gates said, is when the portraitist has “more than one
crack at your portrait a generation apart.”
You can argue Gates and
Panetta deserve the honor. But people whose careers are not nearly as distinguished
sit for artists on the taxpayer’s dime.
The Department of
Housing and Urban Development ordered a $20,000 portrait of former Sec. Steve
Preston, who was in the job all of seven months. “Wastebook” also reports
taxpayers forked over $20,000 for former Energy Secretary Steven Chu, $23,000
for former NASA deputy administrator Lori B. Gardner and $30,000 each for the
first and second Homeland Security secretaries, Tom Ridge and Michael Chertoff.
Enough already.
“Taxpayers shouldn’t
pick up the tab for a portrait that costs more than many hardworking taxpayers
make in a year,” said Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., who is leading a bipartisan
effort to rein in spending on portraits.
The proposed Responsible
Use of Taxpayer Dollars for Portraits Act would prohibit federal funds for
portraits of members of Congress and most agency heads and set a cap of $20,000
per painting of those in the line of succession to the presidency.
Congress should stop spending
taxpayers’ money on official portraits – even for bigwigs who have good dogs.
©2014 Marsha Mercer. All
rights reserved.
30
No comments:
Post a Comment