How much is this election costing taxpayers?

 

By my reckoning, which is undoubtedly off by a very big factor, the total cost of the presidential election in this cycle will be well in excess of $1 billion. Whatever the final number may be, what has caught my attention in particular are those costs that are paid by the taxpayers, such as the salaries and overhead expenses directly associated with the candidates who are already on the government payroll.

 

Looking at Senators Clinton, Obama and McCain for example, does anyone wonder why politicians are generally able to remain on government payrolls while they run for another office? This, of course, applies to everyone in jurisdictions at every level: city, county, state or federal government.

In January, the annual compensation for senators was increased to $169,300, which is more than double the median household income for the Washington, D.C. area. In addition, “The Senate’s system of allowances consists of an Administrative and Clerical Assistance component based on population of the home state, a flat Legislative Assistance Allowance to hire three legislative staff members, and an Official Office Expense Allowance (primarily based on population of the state and distance from Washington) for items like travel, franked mail, and office supplies. Senate office expense data is not disclosed as readily as House data, but the National Taxpayers Union estimates that combined Senate allowances range from $2 million to under $4 million per office. …None of these allowances include extra money for employee benefits, the lawmakers’ own salaries, or considerable budgets for lawmakers’ committee work.” (Source: ntu.org)

 

Other benefits that members of Congress receive include:

• Free outpatient care at Bethesda and Walter Reed Hospitals.

• Subsidized health care.

• Use of their office expense account to purchase meals.

• $3,000 annual housing allowance tax deduction.

• “An inflation-adjusted pension plan that’s almost three times as generous as the typical private sector pensions.”

• A special thrift-savings account that includes a one-to-one match up to five percent of a member’s salary. (“Congressional Perks: Not Exactly Hard Times on Capitol Hill,” by Richard Sammon, KiplingerBusinessResourceCenter, June 19, 2007)

 

Title 2, Section 39 of the U.S. Code stipulates, “The Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives (upon certification by the Clerk of the House of Representatives) shall deduct from the monthly payments (or other periodic payments authorized by law) of each Member or Delegate the amount of his salary for each day that he has been absent from the House, unless such Member or Delegate assigns as the reason for such absence the sickness of himself or of some member of his family.” However, there seems to be considerable doubt that this requirement is being enforced.

John Berthoud, President of the National Taxpayers Union, observed that compliance with Section 39 “would not require a Herculean effort on the part of Congress,” and that it “could be accomplished through the regular payroll certification process to which Member offices are currently subject.” (“As House OKs Pay Hike, Citizen Group Slams Senate’s Move to Collect Taxpayer Salaries for Campaigning,” National Taxpayers Union, June 29, 2005)

 

As for other jurisdictions, such as cities, counties and/or states, I don’t know of any rules that require suspension of pay or benefits while an officeholder is away seeking another office.

It’s difficult to put specific numbers to this sort of analysis, but a rough approximation of the cost of a member’s absence from the Senate while he is away campaigning might easily be in excess of $1 million a year for the ongoing expense of maintaining his office and benefits, even if his salary is suspended. Add to this the $84 million in public funding that’s available for those candidates who agree not to raise or spend outside funds during a presidential election campaign. (Wikipedia)

With three sitting senators currently out campaigning for president for the better part of a year, the taxpayers are picking up a very large bill. The senators have been returning to D.C. periodically for important votes when necessary, but, for the most part, they are not really fulfilling the responsibilities for which they were elected.

 

Senator McCain has indicated that he may resign from office after his nomination as the Republican candidate is secured to devote his full attention to campaigning for the presidency. That makes me wonder whether he has not been devoting his full attention to campaigning to this point.

My conclusion is that when sitting officeholders decide to run for another office they should be required to resign. It’s not going to happen, I know, but, that’s just my opinion.