Outrageous! Why would the GSA have to hire this clown? Talk about “carrying coals to Newcastle…”
That the GSA’s spending 0ver $800,000 on a Vegas staff fling masquerading as a working conference was unethical and an example of government agency arrogance at its worst seemed so obvious to me that I was going to eschew commentary entirely. When Newt Gingrich, Eric Holder and Kim Kardashian would likely understand what is wrong with any conduct, my analysis is superfluous. However, here are a few observations regarding the more critical issue of what this episode teaches us about the Obama Administration, the culture it has fostered and its leadership:
- I do not think it is unfair to consider whether the General Services Administration scandal might be a direct result of the culture in the Obama Administration generally. The overwhelming impression left by the entire administration from the top down is that austerity is for everyone else. The message sent by continued unnecessary and profligate spending at all levels of the government was bound to be taken as a general green light to be abused by someone, and that someone happened to be at the GSA. Of course, there may be other someones who haven’t been found out yet.
- This would not have happened under Jimmy Carter. Few remember now, but Carter made a concerted effort to dismantle the “Imperial Presidency” lifestyle and trappings that had flourished under Nixon (and that returned with Ronald Reagan.), in part because the nation was in a recession. For example, his inauguration festivities were scaled down from previous levels. I doubt this would have occurred under George W. Bush, either, who typically spend holidays with his family at the White House, and whose vacations, and certainly those of his wife, were modest and inexpensive by Obama standards. If you do not think seeing your ultimate boss and his family taking a series of luxury vacations with no concern about the external hardships in the nation does not deaden the ethics alarms of agency officials planning a conference, you do not understand the power of culture and the role of leadership.
- To be fair, I don’t think President Obama considered this…because he does not understand the power of culture and the role of leadership.
- The Post reports today that taxpayers have picked up an $800,000 tab for Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta to fly back and forth to his California home since July. Note that this is the same amount of waste that has triggered the GSA scandal, Congressional hearings, and perhaps criminal charges. It is exactly as outrageous, because there is no excuse for it. Panetta says he’s “sorry.” Bully for him. The Post writes: “Although Panetta said he regrets the cost to taxpayers, he told reporters that he is open to ‘alternatives here that I can look at, that might possibly be able to save funds and, at the same time, be able to fulfill my responsibilities not only to my job but to my family.’” Sorry, Mr. Secretary, but you can make a choice. This running tab wasn’t mentioned during your confirmation hearings; we didn’t agree to it. You have been bellyaching about defense cuts and the risks to national security. Move your family, find another job, tell the President to rescind the order forcing you to fly on military planes, or don’t go home so much. Stop wasting our money. The question to ask is this: are Panetta’s frequent trips home any more valuable to the nation or relevant to governmental duties than the GSA staff’s commemorative coins, their bicycle-building exercise, or their mind-reader? I don’t see how.
- The central figure in the GSA scandal, Jeffrey Neely, was given a performance bonus by his GSA boss after the Vegas conference, and after its obvious potential to embarrass the GSA was flagged. I certainly hope this is mentioned the next time a corporation comes under fire by the Obama Administration for similarly rewarding the incompetent.
- The Obama-protecting media has soft-peddled it, but Vice President Joe Biden charged the Secret Service $21,000 in 2011 to stay in a cottage on his property while they were protecting him and his family. I know that isn’t technically unethical, but it is, in fact unethical. The agents are providing a service to Biden, and he is taking taxpayer fund to enrich himself as part of their expenses to do so, because, well, he can. I wouldn’t do it. It feels wrong, and it looks wrong. Why? Because it is wrong.*
Culture. Leadership.
Crickets.
- I keep hearing pundits commenting on how scandal-free the Obama Administration has been, which is either rampant confirmation bias or outright dishonesty. The media has been lax in investigating and reporting scandals, which is not the same thing. Solyndra is a scandal. The continuing cover-up at the Justice Department over Fast and Furious is a scandal, as was Fast and Furious itself. Then there is this: yesterday Jeffrey Neely repeatedly took the Fifth Amendment when questioned by Congress. He became the second Obama agency official to refuse to answer questions from Congress in order to avoid self-incrimination. Government officials taking the Fifth in from of Congress like Michael Corleone conjures up the memories of other invokers, like John Dean, and Oliver North. This itself is a scandal, for any Administration, by any standards.
Culture. Leadership
_________________________
* A friend who is experienced in these matters writes off site to take me to task for not recognizing the complexities here. Biden can’t give free lodging without violating one law; there are tax implications all around, etc. Great information, but the fact remains: Biden is receiving taxpayer-funded enrichment for his own protection, and it looks terrible. Since I have never heard of this sort of an arrangement before, I presume that the situation can be avoided, even if it means that Joe’s convenient cottage can’t be used lest he look like a double-dipper. So be it.
Ethics Alarms 
direct result of the culture in the Obama Administration
Please cite some evidence linking GSA to the POTUS. Did Obama appoint Johnson or Neely or were they career government employees?
not have happened under Carter…George W. Bush
Explain how. Didn’t W take vacations at his home in Texas? Reagan went home to California all the time. Wasn’t Obama born in Hawaii (or Kenya depending upon your level of crazy)? How long were W’s vacations in Texas? I don’t see how any of this is relevant.
Move your family, find another job, tell the President to rescind the order forcing you to fly on military planes, or don’t go home so much
You just sound like you’re ranting now–trying to link all of these together. But I don’t see a common thread.
Biden…
Isn’t this the most frugal congressmen ever? He took the train from Washington while in the Senate. Do the math–$21K over a year is $1750 per month. That’s not exactly defense department gouging. I think your argument is misplaced and tainted by bias.
“Please cite some evidence linking GSA to the POTUS. Did Obama appoint Johnson or Neely or were they career government employees?”
This statement invalidates your comment. If you also can’t comprehend culture and leadership, I’m not in a position to give you a tutorial. A VERY brief precis:
1. Obama is “connected” to the GSA because he’s the leader of the government and the guy ultimately in charge. Every study , everything know about organizational culture and ethics agrees on one point: leadership shows the way.
2. In ethics, perception is everything. Bush vacationed (but much less frequently) at his unglamorous Texas home. Obama goes to Hawaii. Michelle goes to Europe, her daughter to Mexico. It looks bad. I am in favor of presidential vacations, but Bush wasn’t fighting a recession and demanding sacrifice (though he should have been). It looks bad, and teaches the wrong lessons.
3. I don’t know what you call ranting. My point is that Panetta has to find away not to waste the money. Those are options. Soending millions over the next few years to vist home is not.
4. $21,000 is a lot of money to most Americans. You’re rationalizing.
1. So you’re arguing that the activities of Johnson/Neely were a direct result of the POTUS? That seems a little absurd to posit that every four/eight years the government undergoes a sweeping overall of culture dependent upon its new leader. That would assume that our armed forces change their behavior dependent upon whom the president is. Ludicrous.
“Every study” Really? Are we gonna go down the road of published research again. I’ll skip that for now. But your argument would you suggest that Ozzie Guillen’s comments were a direct result of the leadership of Jeffrey Loria. According to you there is no individual accountability.
2. Perception is everything? Yours is tainted and demonstrates bias. You say that Bush vacationed “much less frequently” without any credibility. According to this Obama’s taken less than 1/3 the amount of days as Bush.
3. It’s the way I interpreted the tone in your post. I enjoy reading your comments and insights due to their polished and well crafted arguments–even if we don’t always agree. This afternoon it came across as the crazy guy on the corner preaching that the world was ending (albeit with a spectacular vocabulary).
4. Call it rationalizing but I refer to it as understanding all the facts. He would be violating the law for notcharging rent. It should be a non-issue, but for political opponents it has become ridiculous fodder. It didn’t stick because it shouldn’t. And it didn’t belong in this post as further proof about a culture and leadership issue with the POTUS.
1. I’m not arguing at all. I’m stating the fact that the ethical tone and conduct standards set by leadership in any hierarchy creates a culture and vastly influences the conduct of everyone in the organization. That applies to the U.S government and the nation as a whole. Of course Obama isn’t DIRECTLY responsible, solely responsible or even necessarily responsible for any one incident. But his leadership has sent the message that the government itself need not economize even on recreation. That can have consequences.
2. Why are you omitting my inclusion of Carter? Because it supports your fake accusation of partisan bias. (Carter was a worse President than Obama, but he sent a consistent message that government employees should be frugal with the taxpayer dime.) A trip to Lubbock Texas is working at home, not a vacation, except to partisans trying to make the point that Bush was goofing off. Hawaii is a vacation. Martha’s Vineyard is a vacation. I’m counting Michelle’s vacations too–go ahead: Google away. How many luxury vacations did Laura go on? Perception is what I was talking about. People don’t think that the President is living it up on taxpayer funds when he goes someplace they wouldn’t want to.
Don’t falsely accuse me of bias again, Gregory. It’s cheap, it’s unfair, and it’s wrong. Not always…I slip up. Not this time.
3. I’ll cop to the tone.
4. Yes it did, because it is a leader’s job to be careful of appearances. The law didn’t require Biden to house the Secret Service in his cottage.
1. If you’re not presenting an argument should I assume this is just an editorial? Because what I read here is based upon innuendo and impression–more tail that wags the dog. You haven’t cited any valid examples that tie Obama’s style of leadership or culture with the negative consequences. If you show me cabinet level abuses or scandals I may be with you (and time will tell about F&F). However, government is too big to pin the GSA scandal as an effect, either direct/general (you use both words), of Obama’s presidency.
2. I omitted the reference to Carter because I’m in agreement–but we also have to draw the line somewhere. Instead, I exposed the fallacy of your quantitative argument about vacation. You said “I slip up…not this time” but you did and then quietly edited your original post to reflect a different argument–one of a qualitative nature regarding vacation. At face value that seems dishonest without acknowledging the mistake.
Bias? We’re all biased, Jack. Nobody is 100% impartial. You have a fondness for baseball. That biases your assessment of other sports. You have a bias against recreational drug use. TGT is generally biased against religion. No big deal. The talent is to not let that show through when presenting an argument. Most of the time you’re fine. This post, tone included, was a chink in the armor.
4. As someone who advises companies on the importance of ethics I would hope that facts and truth received equal weight to outward appearances. I see no difference with writing about Biden/SS and the “birther” movement. They both appeal to irrational emotion and harm any chance of productive discourse.
1. These are all opinion pieces, Gregory. If I was asserting immutable fact, I wouldn’t encourage comments and debates. The idea is to think about these things. I am not attempting to end discussions, but begin them. My personal style is to state a position. I’m a lawyer. I could state teh opposite positions pretty effectively too, in some cases.
2. You’re right that the post was over-stated, though. I just fixed that, right at the start. I think the GSA scandal could be the result of the culture flowing down, and I think people should think about that—I can’t say it is. But the culture flowing down is still irresponsible.
3. I edited the post to make clearer what I thought was clear in the first place. When someone like you misunderstands what I thought was correctly stated, I often check to see if the confusion was a careless phrase or a careless reader. There was no issue about Bush taking lavish vacations, or his wife, and the nation was not in a recession—there would have been little outcry if he had been travelling to Hawaii. Don’t play “gotcha” with me: I asumed that the distinction was obvious, and, frankly, I think playing off Bush’s family’s trips to the Texas plain with the Obamas imperial deluxe vacations is a little disingenuous, or willfully obtuse. You know the difference.
4. I’ve never said I didn’t have biases. But I spend a great deal of time, with every piece, assessing my biases and adjusting for them. Most of the time, people on this blog who play the bias card are just plain wrong in their assessment of what my biases are. For example, I am biased in favor of any U.S. President, regardless of party, up until he shows himself to be unworthy of the office in ability and character. For the record, that last U.S. President who got through his whole administration without reaching the latter point was JFK (Reagan almost made it), and that was only because I didn’t know what I know now, he was shot, and I was 13 at the time.
OH! Just remembered that I haven’t fixed that typo for you yet! Sorry–I’m doing it now.
Thanks for the typo fix. That was another thorn in my side…
I certainly hope this is mentioned the next time a corporation comes under fire by the Obama Administration for similarly rewarding the incompetent.
While I agree with this impulse at one level, I actually hope it doesn’t get brought up. The criticism would be much deserved, but would ultimately (let’s face it) be used to a political rather than ethical end. In other words, the Obama administration’s condemnation of corporate executives who drove their companies into the ground, got bailed out by the government (a.k.a., us) and then threw extravagant parties for themselves is legitimate, even if… erm… inconsistent.
It is perfectly reasonable for the GOP or the right-leaning press to note the anomaly (not to say hypocrisy), but ultimately, in real terms, this would serve only to excuse bad behavior by Group X because it’s also practiced by Group Y. I say “in real terms” because it needn’t be this way: it would be possible for someone to say, “it’s ironic that it’s the Obama administration who is pursuing this, but, you know, they have a point.” I just don’t think such a person exists in today’s political world. Where are Everett Dirksen and William Fulbright when you need them?
Arrggghhh. Proxmire, not Fulbright. Brain on vacation,
You’re right, of course. I almost left that comment out, for just that reason. Or I should have clarified. The Bonus issue is more complicated than it is often portrayed, especially by political demagogues. At the GSA, that offending bonus was paid because Neely had served in an acting capacity without compensation for a long time: he had earned the money before the Vegas fiasco. I still wouldn’t have paid it—perceptions!!—but officials and partisans using the bonuses on Wall Street as per se evidence of curruption is intentionally misleading the public—as when Sen. Chris Dodd approved Wall Street bonuses in the bailout deal and then made speeches against them.
I have just discovered your blog but if your comments on the GSA and Panetta are any indication. I am going to be a fan. Stay vigilant!