Politics, As Usual
 
Recently, in a CBS.MarketWatch.com article I wrote, I made an error.  Apparently,  it was a big one. I mistakenly blamed IRS for press release issued by the U.S. Treasury Department. 
 
April 9, 2004 U.S. Treasury Department Press release, ironically numbered JS-1313. 
http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/js1313.htm
The press release contained this footnote: 
 
 America has a choice: It can continue to grow the economy and create new jobs as the President's policies are doing; or it can raise taxes on American families and small businesses, hurting economic recovery and future job creation
 
I was under the assumption that the US Treasury Department issues press releases for IRS - since so many of them are about taxes. Apparently not. IRS does their own press releases.  And they don't include political statements on them.
 
IRS already has a bad enough rap - they don't need me to blame them for something they didn't do. I really should have checked my facts better. In fact, my editor did ask me about it - and I told him the Treasury issued releases for IRS. So wrong. I really must check my facts better.
 
It seems, even though we removed the error from my article as soon as we learned of the error, other major national publications ran with the story.
 
So, world, please accept my apologies.
 
However, that doesn't change the fact that an agency of the United States government included such a partisan statement.  That brings up some questions
 
1)  Should the US Treasury Department be including that kind of political statement with their press releases?
 
2) Was it a political statement, or just support for the country's head of state?
 
3) Who in their right mind would number a press release 1313 and not expect bad luck to follow?
 

---

 
Let's start with the second question:
 
2) Was it a political statement, or just support for the country's head of state?
 
Let's examine the statement more closely, shall we?
 
 America has a choice: It can continue to grow the economy and create new jobs as the President's policies are doing; or it can raise taxes on American families and small businesses, hurting economic recovery and future job creation
 
Yup. It's definitely political. Without question, it's a swipe at the Democratic campaign.
 
Ironically enough, the economy grew dramatically under a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, and collapsed immediately after George Bush's  shockingly pessimistic inaugural speech. Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy - he said the economy would be getting worse - and precipitated one of the biggest slumps in stock market history.
 
I remember hearing his speech and being shocked. Immediately, I thought, oh no! People will act on this. Why did he need to say that? At his inauguration.
 
For Treasury to be simply supportive of the administration, the press release should have read more like:
 
America continues to grow the economy and create new jobs as the President's policies are taking effect.
 
But if it said that,...there would have been no reason to include it with the press release.
 
There's no reason why the US Treasury, or any department of the government can't support the policies of the admintration. In fact, they should, that's their job.
 
But, let's go back to the first question:
 
1)  Should the US Treasury Department be including that kind of political statement with their press releases? 
 
Absolutely not.    
 
This is one of the things I find amazing about our politics. Why don't our elected officials understand?
 
When you are running for office, sure, you are a member of a party.
 
But once you get elected, you represent ALL your constituents.
You are supposed to look after the interests of all the people in your district, state, or area.
Your mandate is the good of the country - not your party.
 
 
I find it so frustrating that in all communications, on the House and Senate floor, in the media, in news articles, all legistlators are referred to by their names, their party affiliations and their state or district.
 
It is my opinion that once elected, they should be referred to by their names and states or districts, period. Leave the party out of it. Let everyone forget the party affiliation, including the legislator.
 
Frankly, being a financial kind of person, I feel that if elected officials persist in representing only the members of their party, they should not be paid by all their constituents.
 
Perhaps we ought to start a drive to adjust the salaries of elected officials. Those who only represent their parties should be paid a percentage of their assigned wages. They should only receive wages in proportion to the members of their party to the total registered voting population.
 
For instance, if they are Republican, and Republicans make up 35% of the voters in their constituency, they should receive only 35% of the budgeted salary.
 
This will never happen. But wouldn't it be something if it did?
 
Do you think it would help elected officials understand who they really represent?
 
Just one woman's opinion.
 
 
Eva Rosenberg
 
 P.S. That 1313 number...well, this release did cause trouble, didn't it?