Let's Just Call April 15 "Miss Beazley Day"

How is it that the federal government pays for outside public relations and even propaganda campaigns, even though such activity is specifically prohibited by the Constitution and a 1913 law, unless specifically appropriated? This fascinating Congressional Research Report [PDF] from earlier this week explains. Basically, there is no oversight mechanism except for "fire-alarm" watchdogging from the Government Accountability Office, which only kicks into gear when a member of Congress complains, and which has consistently taken an extremely narrow interpretation of the restrictions. And, "At present, the federal government has little knowledge of the extent of agency expenditures on public communications. … Agencies' budgets do not lineitem list public relations expenditures."

The report also lists these new (to me) examples of taxpayer-financed guvmint BS:

The White House has reportedly expended public funds to create and maintain Barney.gov, a child-friendly website that celebrates the President's Scottish Terriers, Barney and Miss Beazley. The site features photographs and videos of the dogs, along with their biographies and "answers" letters from children. […]

The Forest Service hired a public relations firm to produce a brochure which promoted increased logging in the Sierra Nevada forest. […]

The Social Security Administration (SSA) has reportedly drawn up a "strategic communications plan" that urges SSA employees to disseminate the message that "Social Security's long-term financing problems are serious and need to be addressed soon" through speeches, public events, and mass media, and by other means.

Here's that Barney.gov link, by the way. Probably best when viewed stoned.

Comments

[Lowdog]

I love how they interpret things narrowly when a broad interpretation won't let them spend as much of our money.

[Evan Williams]

This country was founded in such a manner as to severely limit the freedom of the government, while ensuring the freedoms of individuals.

Over the last century, the consistent theme is the mirror image of that ideal. Individual freedoms are sacrificed [read: taken] in the name of looser restrictions on the State/political class.

The question is, will we reach a "libertarian critical mass" before the state consumes what is left of the foundations of the US?

Unless I knew better, I'd bet good money that this motherfucking barney.gov shit was done up by chickenhead (the makers of the over-the-top, sometimes-hilarious, Whitehouse.org. The fact that it is the real deal is yet another depressing blow.

Verily I say, burn DC to the ground. Start over. Take back our beloved country from these evil bastards.

[thoreau]

I hope that all of this government spending on propaganda doesn't undermine anybody's faith in the Bush administration. I'm sure that a number of people on this forum would be happy to explain why you can still trust this administration 😉

Andrew?

[Evan Williams]

Um, yeah, oops. I don't want the SS Henchman knocking on my door tonight, so...to anyone who might take my call for revolution seriously, um, don't.

[Evan Williams]

Thoreau,

You seem to drop that little line about "trusting the administration" quite a bit.

Anyone who actually trusts any executive administration is a fucking dope-headed fool in the first place, so why joo wastuh yo time?

[AIX42]

ummm, most everything is better when viewed stoned. Obvious I suppose. I can't believe that the Bush Admin is the first to be up to this sort of thing.

[Andrew ... not]

thoreau

if the US creates EVERY imaginable presidential pet website...why, that is OVER-REACH

and if we fail to create any, where arguably some of the same criteria would apply...why, that is "inconsistency" (UNDER-REACH?)

...and your point is?

Well I suppose your point is - that except in the case of Socks, where presidental pet website policy turned out to be prescient, prudent and visionary - you take a principled opposition to active presidential pet website policies - particularly because you have an aesthetic distaste for inconsistency...except for all the exceptions.

[how is that?]

[not-smacky]

Verily I say, burn DC to the ground. Start over. Take back our beloved country from these evil bastards.

Evan, have you made Valentine's Day plans yet?

Um, yeah, oops. I don't want the SS Henchman knocking on my door tonight, so...to anyone who might take my call for revolution seriously, um, don't.

Oh...yeah. Me, too. Just kidding. [nervous laughter] (look over my shoulder)

[zeroentitlement]

I've just watched that streaming video of Barney searching for Miss Beazley on the Barney site. Early on, our fearless leader is on his knees, in front of the Oval Office desk, shaking his finger at Barney. And I couldn't help but think of Ginger. Except that in this case, we could probably add an extra frame for when someone's talking to GWB, and it's all coming out "Blah blah blah Mr. President blah blah blah blah Mr. President" on his end.

An excellent use of public funds; ranks right up there with reprinting all the menus to offer "Freedom Fries." Barney's the only creature I care for in that whole building, anyway.

[not-Mo]

Evan, have you made Valentine's Day plans yet?
You're overthrowing the government on Valentine's Day? It's a two-fer!

[Lowdog]

smacky - are you hitting on Even right here on H&R? I'm shocked and outraged. Children might be reading this!!!!!!!!

[not_smacky]

Lowdog, and the government officials who are now observing my keystrokes,

smacky - are you hitting on Even right here on H&R? I'm shocked and outraged. Children might be reading this!!!!!!!!

No, I was kidding. And don't be silly: everyone knows that children can't read.

And I'm NOT_smacky, for the intelligence records.

[Dynamist]

joe once cracked wise about denying government a megaphone so the people could hear their debate. It seemed reasonable that the people should know what the state was up to, and I conceded. But once you let them buy a megaphone they'll start using for crap like this.

Perhaps we should legislate to permit the state to broadcast only its proceedings and minutes. Private interests would see that other messages were disseminated. But joe might object that we wouldn't want our information filtered through someone's agenda...