Spotlight on Spending: Cut $54 Million from Congressional Office Budgets

In the second installment of Senator Russ Feingold’s “Spotlight on Spending” series, Sen. Feingold is highlighting how cutting spending on Congressional offices could help reduce the federal budget deficit:

“After the Thanksgiving feast, Americans often make a real effort to ‘tighten their belts,’” Feingold said. “In that spirit, and in the face of record deficits, Congress should do the same. Trimming congressional office budgets won’t eliminate our tremendous deficit, but it is a clear signal to the American people that we are serious about addressing our record deficit. Last month, I returned nearly $270,000 of my office budget to the Treasury. This is something I do every year and an important way for members of Congress to show leadership in curbing spending.”

Sen. Feingold’s legislation estimates a $54 million per year reduction in the federal deficit if all House and Senate office allocations were cut by five percent.

I know detractors will say, “But this only cuts $54 million! That’s just a drop in the big bucket that is the federal budget deficit!” While $54 million here and $30 million there certainly doesn’t seem like much, but it would seem to me that every little bit helps when it comes to reducing the federal budget deficit.


Related Articles

1 thought on “Spotlight on Spending: Cut $54 Million from Congressional Office Budgets

  1. I applaud Sen. Feingold’s efforts on this, but does he support any MAJOR spending reductions to reduce our deficits and debt? This only sets a good example if the politicians follow through on meaningful reforms. Saving $54 million is a joke when they are passing billions and trillion dollar spending and stimulus bills. After all, couldn’t it be argued that this $54 million is stimulating the economy, in the same way the other federal spending is?

    This is press release fluff, on par with Obama’s mere millions in spending reductions earlier this year, after he promised a major spending overhaul during the campaign (remember that “scalpel approach” speech during the debates to end some programs?).

    I’m not going to criticize reduced spending, but this is the equivalent of not buying a gumball when you can’t pay your mortgage.

Comments are closed.