Bipartisan Senate bill would put kibosh on pricey portraits
WASHINGTON — If you've ever walked into a federal building, you've seen them: prominently placed portraits of a senior member of Congress or a cabinet secretary.
Apparently, some of these official portraits have gotten quite pricey: A portrait of former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson cost $38,350, the Washington Times reported. Portraits of former Commerce Secretary John Bryson and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack cost $22,500. All told, the Obama administration spent more than $400,000 on such portraits over two years, ABC News reported.
Two senators want to rein in that spending.
Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Okla, and Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., introduced a bill on Thursday to limit taxpayer spending on official portraits to $20,000.
“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.
“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.
The bill would limit federal funds for portraits to anyone in the line of succession to the presidency. So President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, Senate President Pro Tem Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and every cabinet secretary could commission an official portrait up to $20,000. Any additional cost would require non-federal funds.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Large pipelines proposed to carry gas from shale formations
- Judge orders nonprofit tax form release in case against IRS
- Penn State University eyes changes to sexual misconduct case handling
- High-value detainees allowed family calls
- Obama calls for government spending surge
- Dems delay Iran sanctions proposal
- Poll finds most Americans want health insurance subsidies restored if Supreme Court votes against Obamacare provision
- Poll shows giant gap between what public, scientists think
- Teen girl Hernandez killed by Denver police once cited for resisting arrest
- Day, night 4-digit drawings match
- Small drone crashes at White House complex, origin unclear