10% hike in Congressional budget tied to GOP staff?

Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 10:10:06 AM PDT

HuffPo picks up an interesting story. Apparently the Legislative Branch appropriations portion of the omnibus bill beginning consideration today in the House contains a 10% increase in funding levels.

Why?

Reid, asked about the increase at a press conference, initially dodged the question, speaking instead about spending in general.

The unsatisfied reporter repeated the question about a ten percent raise for the congressional budget. "How is that going to help get out of the depression?" she pressed.

Don't blame us, said Reid.

"We had a situation -- you should direct that question to Senator McConnell," he said, referring to the Senate Minority Leader, "because we had trouble organizing this year. He wanted to maintain a lot of their staffing even though they had lost huge numbers. And the only way we could get it done is to do what we did. So you should direct that question to Senator McConnell."

Interesting. Yes, as the HuffPo points out, Senate Republicans "lost roughly 20 percent of their ranks in the 2008 elections," but insisted on maintaining the same level of staffing. I guess that helps with unemployment, anyway. How curious that Senate Republicans concerned about wasteful spending didn't have their hawkish eyes fall on this item somewhere along the way. But such is life.

So it seems the increased staff funding was the sop needed to get the Republicans on board with the organizing resolutions locking in the correct proportional partisan advantages on the committees that we discussed earlier this year. I'm a little sorry to see, though, that they were granted any sort of sop, considering that I think the majority may have had more leverage than first thought to get the ratios they were entitled to and to force some staff reductions to boot.

Still, if the request was made by the minority, they absolutely do have some responsibility to answer for why they think they deserve it in the face of 20% losses.

Well, either that, or they owe us big time for engineering this for them, in the name of collegial relations, and we should expect their serious cooperation on major issues going forward.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Aw, just go ahead and ask McConnell why he thinks they should be allowed to keep their old staffing levels.

  • ::

Tags: Legislative Branch appropriations, Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, organizing resolution (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 6 comments

  •  Issa R-CA-49 was asking for lots of staff (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    chrome327

    since he had rediscovered the need for Government Oversight, despite their dwindling numbers in the House also.

  •  You know (0+ / 0-)

    things like expanding the congressional budget for some elite politicians doesn't really do much to create jobs.  Maybe it creates some work, but no jobs.

    Bleh.

  •  On one hand, I am for... (3+ / 0-)

    increasing the amount of money allocated to the Leg. Branch.  

    At around only $1.3 Million, Members MRA's (Member Reimbursement Accounts), i.e. office budgets, are already pretty small when you take into consideration that the MRA has to cover all office and travel expenses, including staff expenses.  If you think that is still a lot of money, consider that due to the size of the MRA the average House staffer makes more than 40% less than their Federal Governmental counterparts.  This in one of the most expensive cities in the US.  So, in general I think increasing the size of the Leg. Branch Approps., especially to cover staff expenses is not a bad idea.

    On the other hand, I think it is ridiculous and ironic that the R's want to keep the funding so they don't have to change staff levels.  In '94 the R's in the House came in and severely cut money the leg branch approps.  They did this through the termination of a number of committees and caucuses, they laying off of hundreds of general non political/legislative House employees (janitors etc) and hundreds of legislative staff positions, and the limiting of Members to staffs of only 20 full time employees.

    They were ruthless, all in the name of efficiency.  So their actions today are just another example of R hypocrisy    

    •  Agree with a general funding increase, especially (0+ / 0-)

      in the area of constituent services staff. More people, not less, will be calling in with problems and issues as this slide into hell continues. But it's a bad idea to let the R's have this kind of advantage when they've done nothing to deserve it and everything to have it denied.

      Welcome to the Corporate States of America ®, give us your money, then die quietly.

      by geez53 on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 01:55:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Really bad idea, caving on this one. (0+ / 0-)

    That's the same number of staffers working for 20% fewer members.

    Too many idled hands doing the devil's work.
    Will Limbaugh get his own dedicated staff now?
    More staffers freed up to run errands for AEI and Heritage?
    Or, just more congressional relatives playing games on their crackberries live on CSPAN?

    Welcome to the Corporate States of America ®, give us your money, then die quietly.

    by geez53 on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 01:44:00 PM PDT

  •  iPaper isn't worth the Paper it's written on (0+ / 0-)

    Good piece.  But if you can, please replace the iPaper widget with a download of a PDF or similar.

    I'm viewing this via Firefox 3 on Ubuntu Linux, and it's not liking the widget.  I'm guessing iPaper isn't quite ready for prime time.

    But by now, we know how the Obama administration deals with those who would destroy it: it goes straight for the capillaries. --Krugman

    by mbayrob on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 01:36:48 PM PDT

Permalink | 6 comments