[Article] Ray Burke paid €41,492 pension as ex-minister

Capt'n Midnight

No, she most definitely is not prime minister
"second in command"

therecklessone

Originally posted by Cork


She is the Tainaiste of this country so I am not too worried about how many hair cuts she takes?

You should be, your tax euro are paying for them. A new haircut every day ok with you Cork? What if she was flying a celebrity hair stylist from the US to do the deed? And claiming that as expenses?

What I'm gathering here Cork is that you don't have a problem with any expense claims. So if Mary decides to fill her her closet with shoes at the taxpayers expense it would be ok with you. Cos' we all know your modern deputy leader needs a nice pair of shoes...

At least Mary had the balls to apologise for wasting taxpayers money by using an Air Corps fishery surveillance aircraft to get to the opening of her buddy's off license in Leitrim in December 2001. Of course, you'll have had no problem with that.

Cork

So, what items made up the expense claim & over what period?

There were legitimate expenses.

If ye have have information to show otherwise - please post it up.

swiss

Originally posted by Cork

There were legitimate expenses.

You've made this point several times, so I'll try to answer it here. Whether one considers them as legitimate depends on that persons definition of "legitimate". If by legitimate you mean "lawful" then I suppose you are correct. I don't see any officers leading her away on charges of embezzlement or fraud. However, just because she can get away with charging these kind of ridiculous expenses to the taxpayer does not mean that I believe she should. You have also argued that €15,000 is a very small sum in the overall context of overall government spending. Again, this is factually correct but ignores the wider implications that this kind of spending does not encourage any of the "cost cutting" procedures that the government is very lately fond of advocating. If everyone adopts this kind of blasé attitude towards gross overspending, then this kind of overspend will not account for "zero" percent of overall spending.

Again, let's take a look at this figure, €15,000. This isn't €15,000 of Mary Harney's money. It is taxpayer money. Our money. It isn't being spent on travel expenses, on secretarial expenses or on any other kind of expenses that one would normally associate with a high profile position of any kind. It is grooming expenses. Remember that this is public - not private money. I have an obvious question for you Cork. I'm not asking if €15,000 is a large sum of money in the wider context of overall spending. I'm not asking for a professional opinion based on a knowledge of the cost of cosmetics (because I don't think anyone here is an expert in that area). I'm simply asking: In your personal opinion, is €15,000 for personal grooming reasonable or unreasonable?

Now, another point you have raised is that Mary Harney is a hard working politician and is therefore entitled to these expenses. I have to dismiss this argument as erroneous. Even if Mary Harney was the most inept Tánaiste to ever sit in government (a debateable point), she would still be perfectly "entitled" to claim "legitimate" expenses*. Some employees may have an expenses scheme that is directly linked to performance, but unless everything I've learned about Irish politicians is completely false, our public representatives would never willingly submit to such a scheme (unless there was significant public uproar about this issue).

There are two main issues that arise from this single piece of information. Firstly is the increasing public perception that politicians are using taxpayer money to finance an extravagent lifestyle that has little - if anything - to do with their public lives or their work. Secondly, it highlights a growing tendency of lethargy within government circles with regards to fully asessing the cost of various expenses, whether it be a large infrastructural project or something as trivial as personal grooming. Both of these points should be addressed, because as I have already stated, it is my belief that if we are to truly achieve cost effectiveness, it must come from the top down, and not the other way around.

*The terms "entitled" and "legitimate" are used liberally.

therecklessone

Originally posted by Cork
So, what items made up the expense claim & over what period?

There were legitimate expenses.

If ye have have information to show otherwise - please post it up.

I found out what Cork works at. He's a member of a cult, at least you'd think so from the mantra-like answers he gives on here.

I second everything that swiss had to say in his most recent post.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Cork
We live in a modern democracy. TDs claim and are awarded expenses. If we are to attract decent people into politics we have got to accept this.

I'm really not sure what part of what I and others are saying is causing the problem so I'll sum it up.

No one is saying she shouldn't wear makeup (and cut out the Taliban references, that's just over the top).

No one is saying TDs can't claim expenses.

We're saying that €15,000 is excessive for cosmetics.

One of dictionary.com's meanings of the word is:

Something superficial that is used to cover a deficiency or defect

Note: superficial

Victor

Originally posted by Cork
Enough Is Enough - when we criticise decent and hourable politicians for claiming some make - up as expenses. Where is the harm?

Make-up or made-up?

Oh, didn't Mary give her now-hubby a nice state job?

I imagine Joe Duffy spends little on make-up for the radio.

An auditor is expected to dress formally while at work, but cannot claim his suit as a business expense. Why should politicans be able to claim make-up?

Cork

In your personal opinion, is €15,000 for personal grooming reasonable or unreasonable?

It is a hard one to give a definiative answer to.

It would depend on what this money was actually spent on & over what period of time plus circumstances involved.

Media reports have been very scant on specifics. I withhold my verdict as I don't know the make up of the claim.

bonkey

Originally posted by Cork
It is a hard one to give a definiative answer to.

No, its not.

Given that you are constantly defending many things by saying "value for money" is what we need from our government, then it should be simple to answer.

Is a 15,000 per year subsidy on cosmetics etc. value for money? If it is - or even if it might be (if you still want to play the wishywashy card) - then tell us what the value is.

Otherwise, theres a very simple, definitive answer.....its just one you're desperately trying to avoid giving.

jc

Cork

Is a 15,000 per year subsidy on cosmetics etc. value for money? If it is - or even if it might be (if you still want to play the wishywashy card) - then tell us what the value is.

Politicians are public figures. There is a Dail Studio in Lenister House. Expenditure on cosmetics is legitimate. Do more TDs use and claim for cosmetics other than An Tainaiste?

Just as expenditure by RTE on cosmetics is legitimate for it's stars.

But is 15K too high?

As I said It is a hard one to give a definiative answer to.

In all fairness - you would have to see what the items included and compare it what is spent by Ministers in similar positions.

But I would hope value for money was obtained. Knowing Mary Harney one of the most hard working and honest TDs in the Dail - I would prefer to see a little more detail before casting judgement on her expense claims.

dahamsta

What about the all horses that had to die for Mata's coverage though?

Victor

Originally posted by Cork
Politicians are public figures. There is a Dail Studio in Lenister House. Expenditure on cosmetics is legitimate. Do more TDs use and claim for cosmetics other than An Tainaiste? ..... But I would hope value for money was obtained. Knowing Mary Harney one of the most hard working and honest TDs in the Dail - I would prefer to see a little more detail before casting judgement on her expense claims.

A guy I met, a friend of a mutal friend, was in Dublin for business for a fortnight a few years ago. Put up in hotels, could spend as much as he liked on food and drink, but dare he put one can of deoderant on the expenses sheet .....

Why can't Mary Harney pay for her make-up from her fairly generous salary?