The “Statement of Disbursements of The House” every quarter shows what each member of the U.S. House of Representatives spends. I looked up the record for the congressman for my district, Mike Turner, who represents Ohio’s 3rd Congressional District. It shows in detail how Congressman Turner, the the last quarter of 2009, spent $410,318.24 of taxpayers’ money. And shows that for the year he spent $1.31 million. This summary, for Mr. Turner, is found on page 2430 of the “Statement of Disbursements of The House.” The report does not show what salary and other compensation Mr. Turner, himself, received.
Most of the allotted money, each quarter, is spent on personnel — $325,000 out of the $410,000. The report shows that both Chief of Staff, Stacy Barton, and Legislative Director, Michael Heaton, both earn about $160,000 per year.
How does this compare to other Ohio members of congress?
For instance, Democrat Betty Sutton spent 40% more on Personnel at 1.4 million. Republican Jean Schmidt spent an amount identical to Turner. Democrat Kucinich spent just 40k more than Turner and Schmidt. Democrat Betty Sutton spent just shy of 1 million as well. Doesn’t really tell us anything about our Congressman except that he has a staff that is paid. A few staff are paid very well and a few not so well.
Mcohio — thanks for the information. This is just an initial post — I just discovered this web-site. I might try to follow up this post with a post that shows a chart showing the expenditures of all of Ohio’s congressional delegation.
I’d also like to find out how much discretion a congressman has in terms of the amount of money he or she is permitted to spend on office and staff and how much discretion in how the money is actually spent. I’m wondering if some Representatives have more creative or more efficient budgets and, if so, what those budgets look like.
Mr. Bock, So, what’s your point? Are you suggesting that they are paid too much? Too litle? 160K seems fair for the amount of influence that a chief of staff likely wields. I make 6 figures and I’m a lowly analyst. Certainly not as much responsibility as a congressman.
RP, I just thought this web-site is interesting. The last time I wanted to read the “Statements of Disbursements of the House,” I had to go downtown to the public library to find a copy. Now, this report is updated quarterly and posted on the web. So the main point of this post is to share the link to this web-based financial report where the expenditures of any congressman can be researched.
As I indicated above, I’ve not yet done the research needed to better understand how Mike Turner’s expenditures compare with that of other congressman. I imagine Turner’s report is typical and that how he spends money is similar to how other congressman spend money, and yes, I agree that 160K each year for chief of staff type jobs is probably not out of line with the amount that is commonly earned for such jobs.
The underlying question I’m wanting to investigate is whether someone running for congress as a challenger to the status quo, might gain public support by showing a very different organizational structure than what is commonly used by most U. S. congressman, and could propose a better way to spend the allotted $1.4 million each year. If organizational structure is the key to quality, as I keep quoting Deming, then would a more flattened organizational structure be an improvement over the pyramidal structure suggested by this compensation report? And, if so, what might an improved organizational structure look like? I’m wondering how quality should be defined for a U.S. congressman and how a congressman might best organize to produce the best quality. Any thoughts?
Should I take this to mean that while you allowed your readers to believe you would review Ohio’s draft revision for social studies, you were actually busy recruiting an opponent to run against your incumbent Congressman?
Eric, I think you are correct.
Eric, I’ve lost track of Ohio’s draft revision for social studies. I am interested in knowing more about it and would be glad to dialogue with you and others about social studies education in Ohio.
One central rationale for public funding of public education is the preparation of young people to become active and knowledgeable participants in their democracy. This preparation go well beyond what might be in a curriculum guide, but a curriculum guide is a good place to start an analysis. So, give again that link and better yet, include with the link your own post telling how you analyze the proposal. Even though you have made a number of comments, I really don’t understand what you are most concerned about in the current proposal, nor what you would propose as an improvement.
As I explain in my previous comment, this post was not meant as a criticism of Mike Turner. His expenditures, I’m sure, are within the norm for members of the House. I’m sure I will make new posts making the case for a change in 3rd District representation, as I wrote here, October, 2008: Mike Turner Is A Bum, For Our Democracy’s Sake, Let’s Throw The Bum Out.
And yes, I am supporting the Democratic candidate for the 3rd District, Dr. Mark MacNealy, who I think is highly qualified and will make an excellent candidate and, if elected, an excellent Representative for the 3rd District. I will post more about Dr. MacNealy in a future post. I’m thinking I will write a future post that will reference the data in this post and will show how the $1.4 million spent by Turner and other House members might be better spent — in a way that reflects a different understanding of the purpose of such expenditures than what is now considered the norm and shows an organizational structure more likely to produce quality results.
Mike, in your letter Mike Turner Is A Bum, For Our Democracy’s Sake, Let’s Throw The Bum Out you rightly criticized Mike Turner and the Republicans for, among other things, allowing the debt to explode. Conservatives, especially the Tea Party activists, have vowed never to allow the Republicans a free pass again. They proved their intent when they supported an independent candidate in that upstate New York congressional rate.
However, Mike, the debt has tripled or quadrupled under the current administration. Have you complained as strongly or loudly against the Democrats and the President? The Democrats have traditional been the party of deficit spending, as this current Congress shows. Will Dr. Mark MacNealy be a fiscal conservative, or will he support all the deficit spending bills that the President wants or other Democrats propose? How can we be sure?
Rick, I think we need to keep throwing the bums out until we find someone with the character needed for clear thinking, the concern for ordinary people, the insight into the reality of our present time, needed to actually represent us. We are far from having a government for the people. My impression is that Dr. MacNealy is very well grounded in common sense, that he is a person of excellent character and has shown his values in his willingness to help the less fortunate. As to fiscal policy, I believe he will have a good answer to your question. But, I will let him answer for himself. He is now preparing his own web-site. I hope you can support him. I imagine he will be more conservative than I would like, but I believe his intentions are right.
I have disappointment with President Obama — starting early on — see “It’s A Big Mistake For Obama To Excuse Timothy Geithner’s IRS Failure As “Innocent,” but probably for reasons that differ from yours. If I had his ear I would urge him to be much bolder, more FDR in his approach. The times call for leadership with boldness, with a vision and passion for justice. I would not imagine that Dr. MacNealy will easily fulfill my view of the leadership that is needed, but, in my judgment, he would be such a big improvement over the “representation” we have now, and his election would be such a boost for the vitalization of our democracy, that I’m inclined and plan to give him my enthusiastic support.
More of an FDR approach? Thats what I want too, I would love to see Obama turn a recession into a 16 year economic pitfall ending in the culmination of desperate broken countries elevating fascists to power and inciting world war…………….GOOOOOOOOOO FDR! !
Mike says he wants leadership with a “vision and passion for justice.” Mike does not hide that he is very liberal, I interpret his comment to mean he wants a great deal of “redistribution and higher tax rates for those earning over $150,000 or so.
Mike,
Does Dr. MacNealy have a position of borrowing from China to meet Kettering teachers’ salary expectations? Or should Kettering teachers take a pay cut? Does anyone in Congress from Ohio will support Redfern’s anticipated bailout or the Strickland education plan:
The State of Ohio: 04-24-09:
Kevin DeWine: [I]f I’m a school superintendent in good old Greene County, Ohio–Beavercreek, Ohio USA, I know that the next school funding budget has 113 million dollars less than the one I’m in today and it has an 800 billion–800 million–dollar hole. It’s going to be tough to fill that and get back to even in the next budget. People need to be aware of that.
Chris Redfern: With all due respect to that superintendent, I hope he or she was actually watching television for the last year when we had a Presidential candidate and now a president who said, I’m going to shift some of the burden away from the state government to the Federal government. I suspect, in having had been to many of the events where now-President Obama committed himself to accepting more of the financial obligation of public education–that those commitments for the Federal–from the Federal government–will continue.
Rick and Robert, thanks for your comments. I started a response and then revised it a little to make it an opinion piece: What Divides “Liberals” And “Conservatives” Is The Central Question Of System Purpose.
Eric, It looks like Ohio, in general, will have a big budget whole when Federal stimulus money dries up. I don’t think there has been nearly enough discussion about the impact of the 2005 Tax Reduction Act that gave a huge amount of tax relief to Ohio’s wealthiest families. Ohio’s Budget Crisis: Ohio Must Find A Way To Make Its Total Tax System More Fair, More Progressive
And also,
Ohio’s New Budget Will Hurt The Poor, $500 Million Needed, Report Criticizes Ohio’s 2005 Tax Cuts
Eric: Does anyone in Congress from Ohio support [State Democratic Party Chair Chris] Redfern’s anticipated bailout of the Strickland education plan:
Mike: Ohio, in general, will have a big budget hole when Federal stimulus money dries up. I don’t think there has been nearly enough discussion about the impact of the 2005 Tax Reduction Act that gave a huge amount of tax relief to Ohio’s wealthiest families.
So how does this play out in Kettering? Here’s 5 possibilities:
Dem Chair Redfern: President Obama & Congress bailout Governor Strickland’s education plan and all its unfunded mandates.
Gov Strickland: School funding is now constitutional; Kettering needs to review its priorities
Mke Bock: Ohio needs higher state taxes to redistribute back to schools
Superintendent Schoenlein: Ohio’s school funding remains unconstitutional and local taxpayers need to protect the district from a failed Governor (Note: he didn’t say this, but one might infer…)
Everybody else: Are you nuts? Get real.
This is typical spending for a congressional office and given the importance of the office, I’m not sure you want to afford less to those in the positions of greatest power. You’ll get what you pay for or else whomever can afford it. Sometimes you get lucky. Other times, not so much.
While it’s fun to say the current Administration has tripled/quadrupled the budget, that was going to be true of any candidate. McCain’s budget, a projected 17 trillion deficit. Obama, 18 trillion. Bush had agreed on the need for the bailouts as a necessity. Talking about deficit spending is what will make the Tea Party irrelevant. They need to talk fiscal policy in digging our way out.