Posted on 04/27/2013 10:32:32 PM PDT by Kaslin
House Speaker John Boehner took a lot of heat in January when he rubber-stamped the presidents job-crushing tax increases. Indeed, an entire movement sprang up on Twitter -- symbolized by the hashtag #FireBoehner -- in the weeks prior to the compromise urging conservative members of Congress to oust him from his position of leadership in part because he publicly proposed tax hikes as part of the negotiations. The initiative failed, of course, but that didnt stop Republicans from bristling at Boehners supposed betrayal and questioning his leadership. Now, it seems, thats all water under the bridge -- at least for now.
Today, however, and unlike the president, the leader of the lower chamber is actually serious about cutting operational spending -- which is estimated to save taxpayers some $400 million by January 2014 (via USA Today):
The House of Representatives will spend 15% less on its own operations this year than it did three years ago under a cost-cutting effort launched by Speaker John Boehner that is on pace to save taxpayers more than $400 million by the end of this year
When Republicans took control of the House in January 2011, Boehner, the new speaker, said cutting House spending would be a priority.
Since then, House lawmakers have seen a nearly 20% decrease in their office budgets. Three years ago, the average lawmaker had an annual $1.5 million budget, which is down to $1.2 million. Those budgets which vary by office cover everything from staff salaries to district office rent and bottled water.
The graph below illustrates just how serious House Republicans are about cutting spending under Boehners leadership:
I imagine that serving as Speaker of the House in 2013 is no easy task. In many ways, the Republican Party is fractured along ideological and political lines, and thus finding compromise on every issue is probably difficult. That Boehner was about to find a way to unite his party (namely, by cutting wasteful federal spending) is commendable -- especially because Democrats in the Senate are refusing to implement the same exact cost-savings measures. Go figure.
Hey, I just saved $350,000. I did not buy that Lamborgini. I think I’ll buy a large screen tv to celebrate.
Today, however, and unlike the president, the leader of the lower chamber is actually serious about cutting operational spending -- which is estimated to save taxpayers some $400 million by January 2014
The House of Representatives will spend 15% less on its own operations this year than it did three years ago under a cost-cutting effort launched by Speaker John Boehner that is on pace to save taxpayers more than $400 million by the end of this year
When Republicans took control of the House in January 2011, Boehner, the new speaker, said cutting House spending would be a priority.
Since then, House lawmakers have seen a nearly 20% decrease in their office budgets. Three years ago, the average lawmaker had an annual $1.5 million budget, which is down to $1.2 million. Those budgets which vary by office cover everything from staff salaries to district office rent and bottled water.
You are completely ignoring that the Democrats in the Senate are refusing to implement the same exact cost-savings measures.
Thanks, Kaslin. I made the same observation. Yes, this is a drop in the bucket, but this is the only spending that the House Republicans completely control: their own.
The House has reduced their own spending by 15%, and reduced office budgets by 20%. That's huge, even over three years. If the rest of the government did the same, it would put us on track to a balanced budget.
But, the House Republicans can't do it on their own. The Senate is refusing to even reduce their own spending. That tells you everything you need to know about their priorities.
...by using recycled knee pads.
Behind the Scenes, Boehner Saving Taxpayers Millions.
Meanwhile the country is TRILLIONS in the hole. Nice going Boner!
You didn’t read the article either, and don’t tell me that you did.
Didn’t understand my post did you.
My comment was about saving money, not where the Boston Bombers came from, and one of the biggest leaches on our tax payers are the illegals from south of our border. But by the way there are a lot of muslims sneaking across our boarder with Mexico, I guess your okay with that.
"SECURE THE FRIGGIN BORDER!"
And like I said in my post the Boston marathon bombers did not come here illegally
Incidentally the 9/11 2001 terrorist also came legally here
"Secure the border" means different things to different people. In one way, it can be taken as "don't let people in, illegally," and in another way, it can be taken as "don't let terrorists in, not even legally."
I wouldn't call a border secure, if it allows terrorists to immigrate / naturalize legally.
Boehner walks to the walk. Thanks for posting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.