The House voted to cut its own operating budget by 5%. Is this good or bad, trivial or significant?

Good. Its a step in the right direction If millions of Americans aren’t getting raises, aren’t employed, aren’t and don’t have many of the things that our lawmakers are getting, neither should the lawmakers. It shows that they might just be getting it just a little.

To me, it’s trivial. It’s a purely symbolic gesture when action on the economy is really what’s needed.

Good. First, things trickle down. Any attempt to cut back is a good start. Everyone keeps throwing around only $35m or only $45m, but everything counts. Everything! Paying an extra $10 every month on the minimum payment on your visa bill can save you years of interest/money. I have three Porsches in my garage, because my husband and I live debt free. The reason we live debt free is we owned Honda CIvic’s, Mazdas, and Nissans for many years, always lived under our means, and watched our pennies. We are happy to save $1 still to this day, and it all adds up.

Remember, interest on debt is throwing money in the street. Paying any of it down faster saves way more than the calculated $35m or whatever number is beng thrown around.

@hawaii_jake

410–13 is a pretty symbolic majority. And in one day.

@JLeslie

Whatever happened to buy American?

@JLeslie

Sorry, I should have put a smiley face at the end. You make a good point.

@Jaxk Sad to say regarding cars I have never said that. Believe me, going to college in Michigan, they were not very happy with me on that topic. I generally lean towards Japanese cars, and to a Michigander that is the lowest of the low, worse than German, which was bazaar to me, since I am Jewish and grew up around people who would never buy German anything. We have owned a few American cars, because of my husband, I’ll give him credit.

I do however try to buy American when given the choice for other products, and try my best to avoid products made in China especially. I’ll pay more for the American product, it does not just come down to money for me. Regarding the cars it was about quality and reliability. I started driving when American auto manufacturers did not give a shit about either, and so I am one of the people they lost to the Japanese. The German cars are really more about my husband’s fascination with cars.

@Jaxk :)

Can’t remember where I heard this, but not only is it very insignificant in regards to the whole financial picture (being 0.0001% of the debt, for example), it’s also got the potential for real damage. These aren’t raises or pay that are being cut 5%, it’s the Congressional budget – what the congresscritters get to use for running their offices and paying their staff. The 5% cut is about the wage of one-and-a-half staffers per congressperson. This means that more bills will not get read (because they have staffers to help with this, to do research and report back about how the legislator may wish to vote), so they will either go into the vote less informed (bad), or they will turn to lobbyists for advice on the bills. It’s an opening for the Corporate Overlords to give unfiltered advice – what could go wrong?

Trivial. It also depends on what they cut. A budget cut reducing operating expenses doesn’t cut cost by necessity if it’s a stupid one, and I tend to believe that often the process of cutting as well as what gets cut, the larger the industry the more unintended cost consequences of it due to short-sightedness.

I also think it should be ignored as any sort of achievement until we see the effects. I’m not letting the government use an act like this to convince me “Hey, see…we’re trying” until results are shown. I also don’t think that any body should be congratulated for running more efficiently. That’s what it’s supposed to do, dammit. ;-)

trivial

What I like about it is the fact that as promised by the Republicans the resolution was posted online three days before the vote. I also like this statement which came with the resolution: “In our Pledge to America, Republicans promised to cut spending,and with this measure we are leading by example. While only a first step, these cuts provide real savings for the American people and demonstrate our commitment to ending the culture of spending here in Washington. This $35 million serves as just the first installment of savings produced by the new majority, and our work to provide oversight and ferret out waste here in the House will continue throughout the 112th Congress”

Here’s the breakdown of the cuts:

Leadership offices $1 million

Committees $8.1 million

Members’ office budgets $26.1 million

Total $35.2 million

I hope it is the first step of many. I hope we all hold their feet to fire on to cut the outrageous, wasteful and unsustainable spending of our money.

@bkcunningham – Cutting needs to happen. I agree. And that’s a good start in terms of break downs…

…my concern though is that the cuts will start with a bottom-up approach rather than a top down. I want to see big salary reductions. I’m afraid that I’m going to see working and lower-middle class job loss, material eliminations (which cuts into economic profit-making), and other tactics that are more about appearing fiscally responsible while still allowing the big dogs to keep their beach houses.

@iamthemob what big salaries would you reduce?

@laureth

Interesting point. I certainly wouldn’t want to see the congress have to read the bill themselves. Nor would I want them to make the legislation less voluminus.

@bkcunningham

For starters: Congress.

Also: The Supreme Court (not covered, but still).

Also: The President.

@iamthemob what would you purpose the salaries be for these people?

@Jaxk good points. Having to read voluminous bills themselves would take too much time away from legislators and slow down the enactment of more voluminous bills. We certainly wouldn’t want that anymore than we would want to layoff office staff who could read the bills for the members of Congress.

@bkcunningham

You ask an impossible question. Salaries for government service should be sufficient to allow them to live comfortably, but not high enough to allow it to be motivation to hold onto the job, as far as I’m concerned. The career politician is perhaps one of the most unfortunate unintended products of our government.

I have read that one’s happiness does not increase significantly above around $70,000 – that raises beyond that have negligible effects on how happy a person is. In a perfect world, I’d say let’s start there.

But the economic realities of what salary cuts are possible are not in my realm of knowledge. Those are way high. Bring them down, somehow…and do it across the board.

@iamthemob you say it is an impossible question but it was a question prompted by your suggestion to see big salary reductions in these categories. The cost of living in Northern Virginia is ridiculous. No one who has ever lived there is going to argue that. And the cost of maintaining two homes and all that. Who could do that and live in Northern Virginia or anywhere in the DC Metro area on $70,000? Drug dealers, hookers and homeless make more than that! I’m so glad my new friend taught me how to whisper.

Back to your your next point about your fear of seeing working and lower-middle class job loss. How so?

@bkcunningham

I’m not going to argue that 70k is the right number (again, part of the problem with picking a number. Of course, we don’t need to assume a set cost of life for a representative. If we consider it service (as we should) instead of profession (as we seem to) then there are plenty of ancillary benefits that are possible that can reduce general costs. There are other considerations (multiple incomes, for example) that would come into it. And considering that the number of representatives doesn’t really change…real estate reserved for sitting members doesn’t seem out of the question. Too many things to consider, but when we consider that a salary slash at that level to start would allow them to live well if they cut back their expenses, I find it hard to argue that they should be unaffected by the economy as is.

Often, where high salaries could be cut, there is a tendency to cut low level jobs instead, or as well when unecessary. If you make 200,000 a year, and someone makes 40k, it is the case more often that employers in any case will opt to cut a 40k employee if they can, when cutting the 200k to 150k might be just as efficient if not better. Further, if there is a sudden need for employees, there needs to be a new hire, which is an incredible cost.

That’s what I fear. There are easy cuts off the top that I’m sure we could make, but I fear many of the cuts will be invisible base cuts.

@iamthemob please for the love of America, let’s never consider reserved housing for Congress. Who is going to pay for this except for the American taxpayers and on top of their salaries??!!

I’m sorry, none of your second paragraph made one bit of sense to me. What does any of that nonsense have to do with Congress or the federal budget or the deficit? What am I missing here?

@bkcunningham

Wow. Alright. I am not, not, suggesting anything that “should” be done. That’s why I didn’t want to answer “how much?” as I mentioned. None of these are solutions, only suggestions. On a quick note on the critique – paying out a regular salary at x amount, and reducing it by y, and then providing Congressional housing requiring an initial investment of z may be a short-term loss. However, over time, the reduced payout of income may very well make the initial purchase and upkeep worth it, and further may enable cost control for reimbursed living costs we may be seeing. We don’t know, as no one’s presented a detailed line-item. But there’s no reason to consider an initial outlay will result in a permanent net loss rather than a net savings.

What I’m saying is that operating budget is vague. Are they cutting it by firing a whole bunch of people? Is that a good way to revitalize the economy? What are the paired unemployment outlays from those layoffs? If we’re laying people off, are we also reducing salary levels? Are we doing that first, or firing first? Why? I said employer as a shorthand – by employer, also include U.S. Government.

For the Congress, ”[a]s of January 2010, the annual salary of each Representative is $174,000 (the same for Senators).[14] The Speaker of the House and the Majority and Minority Leaders earn more: $223,500 for the Speaker and $193,400 for their party leaders (the same as Senate leaders). A cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) increase takes effect annually unless Congress votes to not accept it. Congress sets members’ salaries; however, the Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits a change in salary (but not COLA[15]) from taking effect until after the next general election. Representatives are eligible for lifetime benefits after serving for five years, including a pension, health benefits, and social security benefits.”

There are over 500 members. The reduction in operating budget could be covered with a 70k reduction in salary if we weren’t Constitutionally prohibited from it. That means that the lowliest is still getting a six figure salary.

Now, that’s not feasible. But if it were…well, I think it’s still pretty fair. And that’s the extreme.

@iamthemob There is a bill, HR 204 that was introduced that would provide for a 5 percent reduction in the rates of basic pay for members of Congress. It has been referred to the House Oversight and Government Reform committee. Guess whose bill it is? Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, (D-AZ8)

@Jaxk – Voluminous bills are big because they spell out details. Otherwise, these details are left for lower bureaucrats to suss out. I’m given to understand that Tea Party enthusiasts are not big fans of bureaucrats, and I, for one, would rather be able to vote out of office the people who write in details that do not work. If you think that details and interpretation are unnecessary, perhaps the complexity of the modern world is not as apparent to you as it is to the people writing voluminous bills.

@laureth

Apparently you haven’t read bills like the health care bill. It’s mainly a framework for creating agencies that will spell out the details. Those agencies of Bureaucrats interpret the intent and creat the details. And those Bureaucrats are not elected.

It the reason that Pelosi said we have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it.

@iamthemob

Congress it self is probably the least of the problem. Government wages in general have skyrocketed and are seemingly getting out of control. From a USA Today article

“The highest-paid federal employees are doing best of all on salary increases. Defense Department civilian employees earning $150,000 or more increased from 1,868 in December 2007 to 10,100 in June 2009, the most recent figure available.

When the recession started, the Transportation Department had only one person earning a salary of $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees had salaries above $170,000.

The trend to six-figure salaries is occurring throughout the federal government, in agencies big and small, high-tech and low-tech. The primary cause: substantial pay raises and new salary rules.”

The government is generous to a fault. And it’s not serving us well.