The Spokesman-Review

Letters to the Editor

Furlough Congress

I guess the sequester was necessary, but applied to the wrong people. Did furloughing air traffic controllers, military personal and ending White House tours save the most money, while affecting “we the people” the least? Judging by ongoing news from Washington, D.C., I think we should furlough all members of Congress. They aren’t accomplishing anything, and do we really need any new laws when we don’t enforce the ones we have?

Also, every bill they do pass contains “earmarks” for funding lobbyists’ pet projects while assuring their own re-elections. Can any bill that contains thousands of pages that sometimes can’t be read until after it’s passed ever be in our best interest?

Another reason that we don’t need Congress is that our president is able to make more and more decisions that completely bypass Congress.

I know all of the lobbyists would be out of work, but they could probably live on their money that normally ends up in congressional pockets.

Let’s make the congressional furlough for one year and at the end of the year see if we are better off with no new legislation, and if we are, put Congress on unemployment.

Vernon Hotchkiss Jr.

Spokane Valley



Want to respond? Submit your own letter to the editor »

There are five comments on this story »


Sections


Profile

Contact the Spokesman

Main switchboard:
(509) 459-5000
Customer service:
(800) 338-8801
Newsroom:
(509) 459-5400
(800) 789-0029