According to a document at Treasury called the “2010 Detail of Appropriations, Outlays, and Balances" Senators and their staffers actually cost tax payers a grand total of $815,257,000 in 2010 above and beyond their regular salaries. Yes, that's correct taxpayers, almost a billion dollars in non-salary expenses for the maintenance of 100 men and women in civil service.If that didn't sink in, read it again. Think about it. There are only 100 senators, and somehow they cost us more than 3/4 of a billion dollars a year, on top of their individual salaries of $174,000. And people wonder why many of us think the government is way too large and spends far too much money.
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Government Expenditures -- Senate Edition
I came across an article in the Christian Science monitor called, "Well, here's a billion dollars the US can have," that lists how much we spend on our 100 senators.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
people wonder why many of us think the government is way too large and spends far too much money
ReplyDeleteI don't wonder, but I wonder why Republicans slash benefits for the poor before military or government waste.
"I don't wonder, but I wonder why Republicans slash benefits for the poor before military or government waste."
ReplyDeleteI'll assume that's a serious question. Pretty much all Republicans are in favor of slashing government waste, whereas Democrats want to increase government which generates even more waste.
But as for the military vs entitlements. Most Republicans see the military/national security as a key function of government, whereas entitlement programs are an increasing drain on our resources that in some cases do more harm than good, by creating dependency, and which are themselves a huge source of waste. And there are a significant number of Republicans, including me, that want across the board cuts, which also means large reductions in military spending.
In any event, military spending isn't locked in and can be cut at any time, if circumstances change that require less spending. Entitlements create mandatory spending and ever increasing costs. Reforming them to reduce costs should be a priority over slashing military spending -- although we should do both.
I'll assume that's a serious question. Pretty much all Republicans are in favor of slashing government waste, whereas Democrats want to increase government which generates even more waste.
ReplyDeleteThe Republican track record does not reflect this at all.
And there are a significant number of Republicans, including me, that want across the board cuts, which also means large reductions in military spending.
Good to hear.
In any event, military spending isn't locked in and can be cut at any time, if circumstances change that require less spending.
I disagree here. The long-term costs are non-negotiable, especially on things like soldier pensions and benefits. These costs are "locked in" and are massive costs foisted upon future generations, many of whom opposed the wars i nthe first place but were too young to vote or have any say. Sounds a little like "taxation without representation" to me.
Reforming them to reduce costs should be a priority over slashing military spending -- although we should do both.
I'm all for making social safety nets more efficient, and I especially support means testing and job creation over handouts, but the military budget is so bloated that I would almost certainly begin there.
Also, all of my comments are serious. Have you ever actually laughed at one of them? Okay wait, no, scratch that... have you ever actually laughed with one of them?
"I disagree here. The long-term costs are non-negotiable, especially on things like soldier pensions and benefits."
ReplyDeleteOk, good point on that part of military spending. Those are basically military entitlements.
"Sounds a little like "taxation without representation" to me."
That argument can be made about pretty much any government spending someone disagrees with. We don't get to pick and choose where our tax money goes toward.
"I'm all for making social safety nets more efficient, and I especially support means testing and job creation over handouts."
We are in agreement on that.
"but the military budget is so bloated that I would almost certainly begin there."
There are plenty of other less necessary government institutions that can be cut first. And i don't mean safety net programs. If the GOP agrees to military cuts, those are the only cuts that are likely to take place, because Democrats oppose other cuts.
There are lots of things that could be cut in the military budget. But those cuts require that we change our policies also. If we are going to stay in Afghanistan & Iraq, and keep intervening in other places such as Libya, it's difficult to make substantial cuts without hurting military capabilities.
"Okay wait, no, scratch that... have you ever actually laughed with one of them?"
Maybe. I'd have to go back through old posts and check.
Cap our senators' income at $50,000, give them basic benefits such as health and life insurance, and see if they continue to throw tax money around so freely.
ReplyDeleteOf course this isn't a serious suggestion (even though I would vote for it), but I think that my point is clear.