Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Pat Herrity's Hypocrisy Shines Yet Again

As I pointed out in an earlier post regarding his inability to show up to meetings on transportation issues, it appears as though Pat Herrity is once again trying to make campaign promises that are in direct contrast to his own situation as a politician. The latest incarnation comes as he is proposing that Board of Supervisor offices receive a budget cut of 10 to 15 percent. While it is reasonable to assume that there could be some sort of a cut to the budget for these offices (Democratic members of the Board have suggested a 5 percent cut), it becomes obvious that this is purely a political stunt for Herrity as he actually has the highest paid employee.

This isn’t anything new for Herrity as I have been told by several Supervisors and staff members that he is the most partisan Supervisor that they can remember. Fortunately, this time there is someone who is publicly calling Herrity out for his behavior.
"I find it ironic that Herrity threw out that number when he has the highest-paid employee of all of us," McKay said of the proposal. "If I was paying my people what Herrity paid his chief of staff, maybe I wouldn't have a retention issue."

Herrity devoted more than a quarter of his budget -- $117,000 -- to his chief of staff, Dave Foreman, who worked for former Virginia Rep. Tom Davis.
It’s important to note that the issue on hand is Pat Herrity’s hypocrisy regarding budgetary issues, not Foreman’s right to make a living. In other words, Herrity is a hypocrite for spending almost $30,000 more on a single employee than anyone else on the Board at the same time that he’s ranting about government waste in campaign emails and trying to have the highest proposed cuts to the Supervisor offices.

The hypocrisy continued when a blogger who holds an odd personal grudge against several local elected officials (especially the Democrat Herrity would run against if he wins the Republican nomination for Congress in Virginia's 11th CD) tried to excuse Herrity’s behavior by saying that he was being bullied. Seeing an opportunity here, Herrity’s supporters went into the comment section of the post and claimed that we shouldn’t be talking about this because they believed it was “distasteful” to discuss someone’s salary and that we shouldn‘t be attacking Foreman for making a living.
Of course, the Republican response here completely misses the point that this is taxpayer money that is going to paying the salaries in question and they are therefore public information. Unless the Republicans all of a sudden want to change course and say there should be no accountability in how the government spends money, then it is merely hypocritical to claim that this discussion shouldn’t be taking place. Considering how this is especially the case in this situation because they are directly contradicting Pat Herrity’s claim that he’s going to fight government waste, the Republican response is also clearly an attempt to avoid addressing the contradiction between what Herrity does as an elected official and what he says on the campaign trail.

No comments:

Post a Comment