Office budgets: House could have cut more

The "do as I say, not as I do" philosophy was on display last week in Washington.

As House Republicans look for savings in non-defense agency budgets, they signaled last week that they'll protect lawmaker expense accounts from the knife.

On Friday, the House Appropriations Committee OK'd a spending blueprint that freezes the $574 million budget for lawmakers' office and travel expenses.

And in a rare show of bipartisanship in the lower chamber, Democrats were OK with that.

Well, almost.

The fact that the overall Capitol Hill funding bill makes a 1 percent cut that would be realized from slowing repairs on the Capitol dome didn't sit well with some. "I'd prefer the dome remain a monument to our nation's greatness and not become a symbol for short-sighted austerity," said Rep. Norm Dicks, a Washington Democrat.

To be fair to the GOP, spending on lawmakers has decreased significantly since Republicans regained control of the House in the 2010 elections. Total spending on expense accounts hit $660 million that year under a Democrat-controlled Congress. The new budget, while frozen from last year, still represents a 13 percent decrease from just three years previous.

In addition, Republicans have been somewhat more frugal than Democrats in this area. A USA Today examination of House office expenses found that of the 45 representatives who spent more than 95 percent of their budget, 38 were Democrats.

Of the 40 members who spent less than 78 percent of their allowance, 31 were Republicans.

Yes, certain expenditures are necessary for the House and its members to function.

But the GOP should have set a further example by enacting additional office budget reductions - the fact that 290 members got by on less than 95 percent of their allowance indicates further cuts wouldn't have harmed House operations.

House Republicans already face predictable heat for even suggesting that domestic programs must face fiscal scrutiny - even though most of their proposed "cuts" aren't cuts at all, but modest reductions in their growth rates. By shielding their own budgets from further review, they risk - fairly or not - further fueling the cacophony.