When is a mere 1 out of 100 significant? How about out of 100?

John Campbell
|
Posted: Jul 12, 2007 5:43 PM

In dealing with the 12 appropriations bills that make up the discretionary portion of the federal budget, we are discussing billions of dollars. Amendments have been offered and voted on for 4 of the appropriations bills considered over the past month to reduce the growth of spending in each of these bills by just 1% and all have been defeated.

Why is this significant to the American taxpayer? If we could reduce the growth of spending in the federal budget by a mere 1%, we could save the taxpayer $30 billion dollars next year and that is a significant number.

Well, perhaps 1% was a little too much to ask for, so some of my taxpayer money-saving colleagues thought that perhaps we should try and reduce the growth of spending in each of these appropriations bills to only of a percent and offered amendments to the past 4 appropriations bills to do just that. I would take $15 billion in savings to the taxpayer anytime. But with nearly all of the Democratic caucus opposing these amendments to save the taxpayers money, they all have gone down in defeat.

Maybe of a percent would be more appealing?