TheMarker has an article with some ideas for the country to save money, with examples of where it can cut some excess wages. There are four examples in the article. The last example is to have only 1 Chief Rabbi.

I am not (at this time) going to debate whether we should have 1 or 2 Chief Rabbis. My issue is not with that part of the article. The article is entitled, "Reduce poverty? Take one chief rabbi". They chose the title in an inflammatory fashion to push their agenda of budget cuts.

The Chief Rabbi example is one of four they chose to write about. They detailed that example in the least possible fashion possible. The other three examples were detailed and explained as to how much they cost the public (in general terms) with comparisons. The example of the Chief Rabbi was bare bones. There were no comparisons, no information, no details as to the costs and/or savings. The previous examples all show how we would save the country buckets of money by canceling whatever it was. This just says get rid of one Chief Rabbi with no explanation. Yet the title was chosen pointing to that example.

Sometimes an article is worth reading for the information contained therein. Sometimes the author has nothing to say or has not put enough research into the article, and for lack of quality writing has to come up with a headline that will draw people in. Here TheMarker has chosen a headline purely for its inflammatory capabilities, as the article could have been researched and written much more thoroughly.