What’s in a (Public Building’s) Name?
November 14th, 2007 by Peter SudermanActing as an elected representative is often referred to as “public service.” But the way some of our politicians act these days, it might as well be called “self-service.” Cato’s David Boaz points us to this New York Times article on the narcissistic earmark projects of some of our legislators:
Other “namesake projects†in the bill include the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at City College of New York, named for the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee; the Thad Cochran Research Center at the University of Mississippi, named for the senior Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee; and the Thomas Daschle Center for Public Service at South Dakota State University, honoring the former Senate Democratic leader.
The bill also includes “Harkin grants†to build schools and promote healthy lifestyles in Iowa, where Senator Tom Harkin, a Democrat, is running for re-election.
Boaz follow up with:
But naming monuments for living politicians is a bit too reminiscent of North Korea or Turkmenistan. Perhaps if we’re going to name public works projects for living people, they should all be named for the people who actually pay for those projects–the taxpayers. So we could name them Taxpayers’ Highway, Taxpayers’ Federal Courthouse, Taxpayers Airport.
I like this idea quite a bit, and I think it would tamp down on the petty, but hideously expensive, self-promotion that seems to thrill so many of our legislators. Who wants to be the first to sponsor a law banning public structures from being named after living (or at least currently serving) public officials?
November 14th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
It’s actually already a violation of Congressional rules to name structures after sitting members. It’s done anyway, of course.
November 16th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
OK, suppose we rename the buildings after they are dead?
November 18th, 2007 at 12:14 am
Just like “Safeco” Baseball Stadium in Seattle - Many of our younger people think the company was named after the Landmark! Personally, I prefer names of people. But, they should be deceased and historically positive. Every day we can create history. I would rather have my descendants learn of real, ambitious, wholesome people than narcissistic entrepreneurs or conniving politicians.
[Thinking of a good old southern term: lower than a snake's belly in a wagon rut!]
November 21st, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Number one: If it is against current “congressional rules”, this discussion should be one of “when will that person face congressional scrutiny, and possibly penalties for that violation. Number two: Public Servants are in Washington to Serve the people not themselves. Number three: a simple “Thank you for the thought, but no thank you”, would be the simplest solution for these politicians to have prevented them being in the hot seat today. Why is it so hard for some people to JUST say “NO”? We are seeing more and more wolves in sheep’s clothing in Washington and it is alarming. What has happened to good old fashioned integrity and moral backbone?
November 26th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
The way some of these people act, naming something after them is like naming the Capitol the Benedict Arnold Building.
November 26th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
This congress just keeps scraping the bottom of the barrel. The problem is that so many of them have been there so long, and know every backhanded way of doing things, that they think they can do anything, pass any bill, overlook anything any of them might do thats against the rules (or law) that they think they can get away with anything. It has become so bad that the only way to really fix it is to replace the entire congress. We just have to be carefull who we replace them with!