Talk Radio News Service: News, Politics, Media

By Ellen Ratner
Last week I was walking by the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, the White House's next-door domicile for White House staffers. I couldn't help but notice a long line of people waiting to get in. I stopped to ask the people in the long line what they were waiting for. All of them were there for a faith-based roundtable. Many of them were recipients of faith-based grants – a brainchild of Karl Rove. It's hard to say if Karl Rove was hosting them, but it would not surprise me given the fact that this was Rove's last week in the West Wing, where he served as the president's "architect" and political director for most of his tenure.

One of the administration's first acts in office was to establish this faith-based cash cow with taxpayer dollars. There has been much discussion about how these faith-based grants have been given out. There are many indications that they were given to states and districts that could be very helpful politically to the Republicans and the Bush administration. In January 2005, the Los Angeles Times revealed that faith-based grants had been disproportionately doled out in swing congressional districts and swing states. Karl Rove has overseen much of the "how much" and "to whom" would receive these grants, but he does so under the cover of executive privilege because he lives in the White House.

Republicans used to attack the Clinton administration for using polling data to make decisions, including deciding on the location of President Clinton's vacation spot. Karl Rove, however, has used the resources of the federal government, i.e. U.S. taxpayer dollars, in ways the Clinton administration could not imagine. In an article last week, the Washington Post documented how Karl Rove directed federal assets, i.e. U.S. taxpayer dollars, for Republican gains. One of the most egregious expenditures was for senior White House staff visits to Republican Christopher Shay's Connecticut district. Officials made seven trips in the six months to Shay's district preceding the November election. According to the Post, these visits marked "significant" events such as one visit to present a $23 government-funded weather alert radio to a local elementary school. One might say these visits "paid off" for the Republican Party, as Christopher Shays was the only New England Republican who survived the November election. I doubt a thank you note was sent to American taxpayers.

What may have been started in the Clinton administration, or even before, was brought to a new level by Karl Rove in this administration. Rove and the office of political director for the White House cost taxpayers well over a million dollars a year. That means, in simple terms, at least 200 tax-paying Americans work a full year to fund the political operations of the White House.

The question is, why do taxpayer dollars need to fund what is clearly a political operation? The president is president of all Americans, not just those who are members of his or her political party. Yes, the president is also head of his respective political party when he is in the White House, but there is to some extent a clear bright line on many political functions that take place in the White House. For example, the annual Christmas parties, large shrimp included, are funded directly by political parties. I think this bright line needs to be brighter and thicker. For starters, the office of political director needs to be funded by the party and not the taxpayers.

Secondly, the office of political director should not be in the White House for the sake of transparency. Yes, transparency – that pesky hallmark of an open society. With the political director's office being in the West Wing, the communications, as well as the visitor's log, fall under that widening umbrella called "executive privilege" and therefore remain under cover of darkness. If the political parties funded the political director of the White House, as I believe they should, the director's office would be at party headquarters. Communications of this office could be open for public scrutiny, especially in the case of suspected malfeasance. The Secret Service's WAVE record, which documents White House foot traffic, would also give a very good indication as to the when's and what's of the White House, as the WAVE record does not live under the executive privilege umbrella. In addition, it would be almost impossible for a president to protect most e-mails under executive privilege.

The West Wing would, of course, still house the president's legislative director and congressional liaison. Those positions are meant to advance a president's governing agenda, which is of course politically driven, but is open to dialogue and scrutiny by the American public. Of course deals are made behind the closed doors of the Congress and White House, but ultimately, those deals are made public in black and white ink on the bills and budgets.

American people deserve to have complete openness about who gets executive branch grant money and contracts as well as when and where this money is given. Having a political director paid for by the taxpayers and residing in the White House opens the system up for misuse and abuse of taxpayer dollars. Finally, for those who would tell me to give up my self-anointed job as political watchdog, I have three words for you . . . President Hillary Clinton.