According to the CNBC post
“The truth is that both the president and House Republicans have agreed to shrink a critical part of the government to its smallest in at least half a century.”
Does it not stand to reason that the Senate and House member’s staff should also shrink?
Does it not stand to reason that the White House Staff should also shrink?
As of 6 January 2011 House Resolution 22, reduced each members authorized level for 2011 and 2012 by 5 percent of the 2010 level. 2011 allowances range from $1,356,975 Dollars to $1,671,596 Dollars with an average Member’s Representational Allowance of $1,446,009 Dollars. This according to the Congressional Research Service document found at the following link
Well it time for another House Resolution to fund the Member’s Representational Allowance. It was nice that they took a 5 percent hit off of the 2010 allowance levels. The question now is what about 2013 and 2014 Members Representational Allowance? Are we the people only going to get a token reduction, or will congress step up show some leadership reduce their spending on their own offices and staffs?
The distinguished members of the Congress of the United States should step up and take one for the team cut your staff positions, not one of the lower paid slots, no fish bone the salaries, and pick a salary that will make a statement, that you care.
I know it is hard to come to plate, and then crowd the plate, know that the pitcher is going to throw the heater at you, and you have to step into the pitch, it will hurt but you will get on base and after all you know you cannot score unless you are on base.
I am sure that like most business, your largest expense item in your Members Representational Allowance is personnel, people are not cheap, and good people are really not cheap. At the present time you are limited in the number of individual you may hire full time and part time (There is just so much of God’s work that must be done, what was leadership thinking when they came up with this). Additional limits have been placed on the maximum salary that you may pay individual staff members (Good people are really expensive). Finally your Official Office Expenses are capped (do these people not know how expensive office supplies and equipment are?).
It is tough being a member of the United States Congress, and it just keeps getting harder in that you must stand for re election every two years (What were the founding fathers thinking), especially now given that you must start your campaign for your next term no sooner than you were elected to the current term (24 hour news cycle is a bitch). To make matter worse the voters actually expect you to do something legislatively (What were they thinking, or were they even thinking?)
I know reducing your Members Representational Allowance, by any significant percentage (25-45 percent) would not significantly change the current deficit picture, the few hundred Million dollars of savings would hardly change the current very deficit number. But a mighty Oak grows from an acorn, and a start is a start. One must begin the journey somewhere.
I know that a 25 to 45 percent reduction in the Members Representational Allowance would put a great many good people out of work, but good people typically do not have a problem finding a new job, or at least that is what you are told. If these individual are not fortunate to find a new position, well there is always unemployment insurance (Or did we gut that fish), anyway if they are unemployment it is certainly cheaper for the United States, unemployment payment is considerable less then their current salaries, and after all it all comes out of the same pot, and you still have your position (That a good thing, right?) and you will have reduced United States government expenditures, and made government smaller (I am sure that these two items were central to re election campaign).