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).
No comments:
Post a Comment