U.S. Taxpayers: $2.7 Million Gets You This
Whenever either house of the U.S. Congress has decided to pass odious or controversial legislation, the leadership utilizes a ploy of slipping the bill in question into the legislative schedule flanking a holiday weekend. They do this expecting the news media and other snoops to be asleep at their wheel, playing with the kids rather than making phone calls and churning out investigative reporting.
This is the ploy Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has chosen to foist in connection with two controversial ambassadorial appointments. At 5:30pm, Dec. 1, the full Senate will take up the nominations of Christine Bell to be U.S. ambassador to Hungary, and Noah Mamet to be U.S. ambassador to Argentina.This lame duck Democratic-controlled Senate is likely to vote them in with little debate, all conspirators in a time honored American tradition of selling diplomatic posts to the highest bidders. In these cases (as far as we know), Ms. Bell bundled some $2.2 million and Mr. Mamet some $500,000 in campaign contributions to President Obama's last run for the White House. It will cost U.S. taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars plus salaries in support outlays each year to maintain these people in their ambassadorial roles. Both parties practice this form of legalized corruption. The Republicans are as equally guilty as the Democrats, though the record shows President Obama has abused the system more than any of his predecessors.
And here's what you get for under three million bucks:
In Ms. Bell, a TV soap opera assistant producer with zero diplomatic or real foreign affairs experience; who so botched her confirmation hearing that Senator John McCain rolled his eyes and dismissed her with a contemptuous remark.
In Mr. Mamet, a campaign fundraiser and operative who likewise put in an embarrassing performance before the SFRC, describing anti-American Argentina as a U.S. "ally."
Neither nominee has fluency in Hungarian or Spanish, respectively, which means all of their official communications with host country officials and societal leaders will require interpreters or the latter having fluency in English.
Hungary borders Ukraine. Its prime minister, Viktor Orban, has displayed a decided contempt for the democratic process and has been cozying up to Moscow, despite his country's membership in NATO and the E.U. Right-wing extremism and anti-Semitism are on the rise. The Hungarian economy is in trouble. Citizens have rioted over tax hikes and levies. It's a complicated picture, one that this writer doubts can be capably dealt with by a TV soap opera assistant producer with no foreign policy background.
Argentina teeters on the brink of bankruptcy, in debt to U.S. banks to the tune of $1.5 billion, which President Cristina Kirchner refuses to pay. Furthermore, she has pursued a stridently anti-American line, drawing her country closer to Latin America's leftist regimes. Washington needs a strong voice in Buenos Aires. Can a campaign agitprop who cannot speak intelligent Spanish be that voice? I seriously doubt it.
My father always said, "You get what you pay for." For a measly $2.7 million in campaign payoff money, we Americans are getting pay-to-play ambassadors to two countries with whom we have difficult, complex relations. Sending hacks to do America's sensitive diplomatic business potentially begets disaster.
Watch this space.
See also my articles on this issue in POLITICO:
Why Does America Send So Many Stupid, Unqualified Hacks Overseas?
Russian Diplomats Are Eating America's Lunch