From the office of Congressman Andy Harris:
Rep. Andy Harris voted today in support of H.R. 672, which would eliminate the Election Assistance Commission (EAC). Eliminating the EAC would save taxpayers $33 million over the next five years, according to the Committee on House Administration.
“In a time of deep fiscal crisis, we have to eliminate out-of-date and inefficient government agencies,” said Rep. Andy Harris. “The Election Assistance Commission is no longer necessary, and we cannot afford to waste another dime of taxpayer money on an obsolete federal agency.”
Background:
– The EAC has allocated all of its remaining election grants, originally created to provide funding to states for upgraded voting machines.
– The remaining valuable service of the EAC, the voting system testing and certification program, will be transferred to the Federal Election Commission which is better able to efficiently perform these functions.
– Since 2005, the year Congress originally intended to sunset the EAC, the agency has more than doubled in size.
– The agency, recently the subject of two hiring discrimination lawsuits, currently spends over 50% of its budget on management and overhead costs.
Andy,
That’s a good start. How about looking into eliminating some other non-essential bureaucratic agencies like the Department of Energy, Education, Environment, etc. Think of the millions or billions that could be saved.
Good job . . .
Did you also know that a lot of Defense Department spending masquerades as Department of Energy and Department of Transportation programs? The budget would be a lot easier to deal with if it was more transparent. I liked the line item veto as a means to delete unwanted spending, why couldn’t congress figure out a way to make it work again? That would be one way to deal with earmarks.
Other than making them illegal and taking the power away completely, the line item veto is probably the only way.
There’s just no incentive whatsoever not to earmark.
I mean, there’s the “do the right thing” and “act responsibly as an American” stuff, but clearly that’s not getting us very far anymore.
Gee I thought when he voted to eliminate the obsolete federal agency I thought it was him and Congress
The entire bunch need to go . . . the salaries and benfits revised to more resonable amounts . . . and new people hired.
The salaries not an issue. Probably every Senator and a good majority of the House members would all make more, or did make more yearly, than they do as members of Congress. The benefits are generous, but not outrageous.
The problem is the fring benefits, which corrupt even most of the well intentioned farm boys, boy scouts, and astronauts after a year in office.
But they all need to go. All of them.
I have to disagree with you on that one. Some will argue that the pay has to be hight, provide the best of the best benefits, and be provided an expense account that totals more than what most Americans make in a year to attract good people. With few exceptions, it hasn’t worked yet.
Well I don’t think we disagree in principle here. The annual Congressional salary is now $174k a year. To me, I don’t think that’s outrageous. Is it high? Sure it is. Is it going to make anybody run for Congress? Not really.
But I also don’t think it’s so low that it prevents anyone from running. Serving in Congress should be just that– service to your country, and an honor.
You can debate about whether or not lawmakers should be full time or part time, for a variety of reasons. Should they be professional lawmakers living on their wage? Or should it be a part time job, like the Maryland legislature? There are advantages to both.
I think I’d like to see the salary cut in half and everyone told to, gee I dunno, go home to their State and do something rather than stand around blathering in DC all year long. That’s how things started out in Congress.
The real problem, like you said are the expense accounts and other perks.
The taxpayers would save a fortune if all Congressmen and their staffers were no longer eligible for pensions, unless they serve 25 years. Require all Congressmen currently receiving pensions to accept a 25% cut. How about it Andy, that would be a true test of your leadership if you introduce such a bill.