Editor’s note: Michael Ackley’s columns may include satire and parody based on current events, and thus mix fact with fiction. He assumes informed readers will be able to tell which is which.
“I’m so distressed,” said Howard Bashford. “I was sure that in the interest of transparency and full disclosure that posting the time and place of this press conference was more than sufficient. I’m as surprised as you are that you’re the only one in attendance.”
Bashford, White House press under-undersecretary for prevarication and mendacity, was wedged behind a bucket at the back of a closet in the West Wing basement, fending off toppling mops and brooms with his elbows and shoulders.
“Mr. Under-undersecretary,” we said, “you ‘posted’ the notice of this conference on the back of the press room bulletin board. If a corner of the page hadn’t been sticking out, and I hadn’t been curious, nobody would be here.”
“Be that as it may – and I’m not saying it’s true – here we are,” he said brightly. “Now, why did you call this meeting?”
“I didn’t call it, Mr. Under-undersecretary; you called it,” we said. “You were going to clarify what President Obama said about the 8,000 ‘earmarks’ in the supplemental spending bill.”
“Eight thousand! That’s exactly the kind of misinformation I’m here to clarify,” said Bashford. “The spending bill did not contain 8,000 earmarks. That’s the kind of misreporting that causes people to lose confidence in government.”
“But it did contain earmarks,” we insisted.
“Some,” said Bashford, pausing to shove away the damp strands of a floor mop that threatened his neatly combed hair. “However, there were only 7,991. And you people say you care about accuracy!”
“Besides,” he continued, “the president made it very clear that the spending bill would be a ‘starting point’ for earmark reform. Further, he said, and I quote, ‘Done right, earmarks have given legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their district, and that’s why I have opposed their outright elimination.”
“When did he oppose their outright elimination?” we demanded.
Bashford was distracted, for he had rested his arm on a shelf laden with cleaning products, and it was threatening to give way.
“It was just the other night, as he and Michelle were retiring for the evening,” said the under-undersecretary, cleverly trapping a bottle of Mr. Clean with his forearm and catching a box of Spic ‘n’ Span in his free hand. “He said to her, and I quote, ‘Michelle, I oppose the outright elimination of earmarks.’ I’m sure that’s documented – somewhere.”
We continued, “He also said earmarks ‘have been used as a vehicle for waste, fraud and abuse,’ and during the campaign he said he was going to get rid of them.”
“Not exactly,” said Bashford, stepping into the bucket and lurching against the wall. “He said they’ve been used for waste, fraud and abuse on occasion. There are good earmarks and naughty earmarks. He’s going to put a stop to the latter by requiring congressmen to post proposed earmarks on their websites – in advance – so the public and press can review them. Who could ask for more?”
“How is he going to require that?” we asked. “Are you forgetting the separation of powers? Congress makes its own rules.”
“Um, um, ummmm,” said Bashford, trying to shake the bucket off his foot.
As no clear answer seemed to be forthcoming, we pressed ahead, “Is the president going to ‘seek to eliminate’ earmarks by using his office as a ‘bully pulpit’?”
“There you go again,” said the under-undersecretary. “You’re quoting out of context. President Obama said, and I quote, ‘If my administration evaluates an earmark and determines that it has no legitimate public purpose, we will seek to eliminate it.’
“The key word there is ‘if.’ If we don’t evaluate earmarks, how can we be expected to seek their elimination? And how can we evaluate them if Congress sets its own rules and doesn’t post them on the Web?”
As he spread his arms in resignation, the bucket-clad foot slipped out from under him and he grasped at the shelf for support, bring down a cascade of cans and bottles containing scouring powder, Pine Sol and floor polish.
We backed out of the closet and closed the door, leaving him sitting on the floor. As we turned to leave, we could hear him calling over the clatter and splash of various products, “Be fair! It’s a start on reform! Remember the ‘if! There are good earmarks and bad earmarks!”
“True,” we thought. “Just as there are good liars and bad liars – and liars who don’t care if the world knows they are lying.”
Speaking of liars: The California budget mess demonstrates that it is not difficult for legislators – and administrators – to live within their means. It is simply too difficult for them to find the courage to do so.
WATCH: Tucker Carlson: Elon Musk is all in
Tucker Carlson