CSotD: Squeak up — they can’t hear us
Skip to comments
The impact of sequestration cutbacks on airport operations triggered a response in Congress and that, in turn, triggered a response from cartoonists.
Some — particularly in the days between the emergence of the issue and the legislative fix — were content simply to point out the problem, which I suppose was okay, since moving things forward is one of the tasks of an editorial cartoonist.
But most of that was pretty plain vanilla. (An exception coming up.)
Once Congress addressed it, however, things picked up, and most of the cartoons were on the topic of the self-serving nature of the solution.
I liked Signe Wilkinson's cartoon that addressed the point while hinting at a less-than-Shatneresque response:
I'd give it higher marks without the label, which is unnecessary on a couple of levels, particularly in light of the contented smile and the refreshing beverage.
I'm not an implacable foe of labeling, mind you, and the Head Start and Medicare labels are necessary here. And my criticism is pretty muted: Several cartoons didn't make it at all because they were excessively chatty and labeled to a greater degree.
But Jeff Danziger hides his labels very appropriately as book titles, melding them with the overall educational mission of Head Start. And, since he headlines his cartoons anyway as a matter of style, he often gets away without internal labels, which is a good reason for doing it. This hed is a bit on the expository side, but it's not particularly intrusive.
What is intrusive, at least for the person in the next row, is the armrest and kid's foot going out of frame at the bottom. What a great touch!
I also like it for this reason: It's certainly true that Congress passed the bill just before a break and so benefited from on-time air service themselves, but too many cartoonists played on that aspect, which I think is so narrow a take on it that it becomes a bit of a red herring.
By contrasting the convenience of well-dressed middleclass gentlemen in general, rather than Congressmen in particular, with the education of poor children, Danziger makes a much more pointed statement about Congressional priorities when it comes to squeaking wheels and who gets the grease.
But I think the broad-stroke award goes to Scott Stantis:
Let's remember, after all, that the purpose of the sequester was to impose cuts so onerous that Congress would be forced to put party loyalty and agendas aside, sharpen their pencils and come up with a long term solution to the impasse.
It can be argued that the administration purposely loaded the cuts so as to make the princess toss and turn all night, but, first of all, so what? That's certainly not unprecedented, politics ain't beanbag and were you expecting a comfy pillow? And, second of all, the basic fact remains: Both parties had allowed sequestration to go through so that they would be forced to deal with it.
The point wasn't to show that the princess could sleep on 27 mattresses. Without the pea, you have no story.
(By the way, I think a better ending to that story would be for the prince to say, 'Wow! I'm glad I found out what a whiner she was before we got married! Thanks, Mom!' But I digress. Or maybe I don't. Obama wasn't attempting to prove the nobility of anybody, after all.)
And I like Stantis's "No Drama Obama" take. He's perfectly capable of attacking the president and has done so. It's not called for this time around and he has the discipline to step back and let the matter speak for itself.
Mind you, it's a pre-legislative take that doesn't address the issue Wilkinson and Danziger were commenting on, but there will be other opportunities to discuss and criticize priorities, including how the squeaking wheel gets grease from the very palms it greases, but also the narrower matter of legislating in your own very best interests.
Like f'rinstance:
Comments
Comments are closed.