Thursday, July 12, 2007
Posted by: John Campbell at 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?



View in ascending order View in descending order
Trackback URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'When is a mere 1 out of 100 significant? How about out of 100?'

About John Campbell

John Campbell is a member of the House Financial Services Committee, and has taken a leadership role in addressing the country's top economic issues. Campbell serves as a member of the Joint Economic Committee, and House Committee on the Budget. He has a Bachelor's Degree in Economics from UCLA and a Master's Degree in Taxation from USC.

Create You Own Blog on Townhall.com - IT'S EASY Search User Blogs on Townhall.com :: Where Your Opinion Counts
Young America
Young America's Foundation
Panel Discussion: Remembering Reagan
Listen Now Listen Now
Click to download Podcast Podcast