Avatar of admin

by

Senate Votes to Increase Office Spending on Fifth Day of Sequester

March 5, 2013 in Politics & Elections

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Sen. Paul today introduced an amendment to S. Res. 64 that would strike funding for an annual $700,000 slush fund that allocates additional staff funding to nine Member and Leadership offices under the guise of the Senate National Security Working Group. The Working Group was created in 1985 to provide the Senate with observers to treaty negotiations between the Soviet Union and the U.S. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the Working Group was extended, yet there is little evidence of any work done by the group. In fact, there is no record of this group meeting within the last three years.

In the wake of sequestration, this amendment would save up to $2.8 million over a four year period. Special treatment should not be given to nine Senate Offices when the rest of the federal government is facing sequester cuts. It is time for our elected officials to lead by example and stop spending as though we have possession of a credit card that we don’t have to pay for.

The amendment failed passage with a bipartisan vote of 44-53.

Prior to the vote, Sen. Paul took to the Senate floor to urge his colleagues to vote in favor of striking the funding for the Senate National Security Working Group.

CLICK HERE TO WATCH SEN. PAUL DISCUSS THE AMENDMENT

TRANSCRIPT:
As some of you may have heard, we’re a bit short of money. We’re borrowing $50,000 every second. We borrow over $4 billion every day. In a year’s time, we borrow over $1 trillion. There are ramifications to that. Some economists now say the burden of our debt is costing us a million jobs a year. What I’m asking is in the midst of this sequester, when people say we have no money to cut, to take this small item.
Now why would I want to cut this small group? A couple of reasons. It’s called the national security working group. It’s about $2.8 million, not much money in terms of Washington, but why would I want to cut it? Well, the first reason would be there are no records of them meeting. We heard about the start treaty. That was in 2009 when they were last meeting. There are no public records that this group that spent $700,000 a year has met in the last three years.
There are …read more
Source: RAND PAUL

Leave a reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.