Lawyers Are Supposed to be Poor

The leader of
Legal Services Corporation, Helaine Barnett, was caught flying first class to Ireland and enjoying "Death by Chocolate" deserts. All on taxpayer money. Oh, and she took some cab rides while in Ireland. Should she have rented a car?

The logic of the complaint is that, because Ms. Barnett supposedly spent a wee bit more money than you or I would, the people who qualify for free legal aid services are denied their just deserts. Or, so it goes. That is because this trip was paid for out of Legal Aid monies. Of course, most of us never get to fly to Ireland, either.

There may be an investigation in this matter, especially given Helaine Barnett's apparently misleading statements to Congress. Yes, the same people who "give" us Social Security, welfare benefits, Medicare, Medicaid, etc, may be more upset about Ms. Barnett's statements to Congress than her possible overspending.

In this article about this matter, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, is quoted as saying, "It's hard to see how it serves those who are down on their luck, and in need of legal aid, for the president of the Legal Services Corp. to take a charmed trip to Ireland, traveling first-class at taxpayer expense."

How many heads of agencies for the poor (noted above) and committee members for the various federal social services programs fly about in business class or first class, dine out at restaurants that have pricey desserts, and entertain board members or committee members somewhere else than in their offices and conference rooms? How many of those people have coffee, tea, and bagels with cream cheese on their office sideboard every morning? Who pays for that? Taxpayers! Do they not know that poor people (public defenders, social security recipients, welfare recipients, etc - and the enlisted military) can not afford those luxuries?

Isn't dining at ANY "inside the loop" Washington D.C. restaurant pretty much "first class"?

Oh, that's right. I forgot. Attorneys who serve the poor through legal aid are supposed to be as poor as their clients.

And what about Governor's mansions? They seem pretty high-class, too. Perhaps Governor's should live in houses that are worth the median price of a home in the state. No first-class trips for them, either.

Perhaps the term "public servant" would regain some meaning if all this rich life-style stuff was given up by our elected and appointed (unless paid for out of their own trust funds).

Maybe we should allow taxpayer standing to sue the government for public servants "rich" or "luxurious" lifestyles that come at taxpayer expense. But, who would define "rich" or "luxurious"?