Watchdog: Federal Government spent $3.3B on office furniture during pandemic shutdown.

Outrageous Government ​Spending on Office ⁤Furniture During the Pandemic Years

Each year in Washington, D.C., watchdog organizations⁢ pore through congressional spending to find outrageous ⁤budget⁢ appropriations tacked onto funding ⁢bills, called earmarks, which funnel money to a politician’s home district. Famous examples ‍include $220 million to Alaska’s “Bridge to Nowhere” and $500,000 for a teapot museum in Sparta, North Carolina. This year, the watchdogs are pointing to billions spent on office furniture during the pandemic years.

According to‌ fiscal watchdog ‍organization Open ‍the Books, the Centers for Disease Control, ​amid giving⁤ out direction​ on COVID-19 protocols, found a⁣ way to win taxpayer ⁤money ⁤to spend⁢ $237,960 on solar-powered picnic⁣ tables. At the same time, the State Department found $120,000 to buy Ethan Allen recliners for its embassy‍ in Islamabad. All told, while small ​businesses ⁢were being⁢ shut ⁣down and ⁢people lost jobs during the pandemic years of 2020–22, the federal government spent .3 billion on office furniture.

Preston Brashers, a senior policy analyst for tax policy at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., ​says COVID spending ⁢was​ not only got out of control but ⁤also helped put us in the‍ deficit mess the federal ​government finds itself in now. “We‌ had $23.4 trillion in debt as of March⁣ 2020. We’ve added more ⁤than $10 trillion‌ since then, which is ‍insane,” he told The Epoch Times. “The same thing happened in ⁤the⁤ 2008 recession and economic crisis. Once ‍those ‍numbers are baked ​into the system, they’re there to stay.‍ It’s concerning.”

Some other outrageous furniture spending‍ highlighted in ⁤the Open⁤ the Books⁣ report included $26 million spent on federal government conference rooms—while meetings⁢ were⁤ held ⁢remotely on ‌Zoom. The Securities and Exchange Commission spent $700,000⁢ on its New⁢ York ‍regional conference room alone.

The Problem with Earmarks and Government ​Spending

The overall problem, according to‍ Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) President Tom Schatz, is that the government has never learned to live without earmarks, and few have ever spoken out about ending the practice. He pointed to one congressman⁤ who this year received disproportionate‍ funding for ⁢his state, all because of‌ his⁢ committee assignment.

“This year, Congressman Chuck Fleischmann received more ‍money than ​anyone in ⁢the House, $273.3 million. We named him Porker of the Month for August. A⁤ lot of that went to⁣ a water⁢ project for his district. That despite the‌ fact that in 2014, the ‌House passed ​a water development resources act which in⁣ its authorization piece said ⁤there would be no earmarks.”

According to the CAGW, ⁤Congressman Fleischmann,​ a‍ conservative Republican from Tennessee, and a member of the House Appropriations Committee, received almost 90 percent more in earmarks for fiscal year 2024 than the second-highest member of the House of Representatives. The watchdog nonprofit said legislators are well on‍ their way to breaking the all-time record of $29 billion in earmarks set ‍in fiscal year 2006.

The organization has also released this week, what it refers to as “Prime Cuts,” or recommendations for reduced spending in Washington it claims would save $402.3 billion ⁤in the first year ‌and $4 trillion over five years. Those cuts include reducing improper⁤ Medicare payments by 50 percent ($23.4 billion over five ⁤years), eliminating Community Development Block Grants (CDBGs) ($16.5 billion over five years) and funding for the F-35 Joint Strike⁤ Fighter ($2.9 billion over five years), something Mr. Schatz claims even the ⁤U.S. Air Force doesn’t want.

He says, unfortunately, earmarks are ‌part ⁢of⁢ doing ⁤business ⁢in Washington, especially in ​election years.⁢ “The ticket to getting elected is to spend money, create a new program, create something that isn’t necessary or even​ duplicative. Each member sits on a committee that ​has its own set​ of spending⁤ programs and they only focus on what they’re doing specifically and if something isn’t working, the answer is to spend‍ more money, which is not the​ way the⁣ rest of⁣ the world operates.”

Mr. Preston agrees that earmarks are⁢ just part of doing‌ business in Washington, and any effort to change the practice should come from the White⁣ House. “It always comes down to incentives, and part of the problem is that this is how things get done in ‍Washington. But​ I guess if you had a president​ who came out strongly against the practice, that would go ​a ​long way toward mitigating it. Especially now with ⁣the deficit. It’s insane⁢ how things have begun to spiral.”

The last president to take a stand against earmarks was​ Ronald​ Reagan, who in 1987 vetoed a highway bill because there were 152 earmarks attached to ​it. “The solution is really more people demanding their money be spent more effectively,” Mr. Schatz ⁢said. “They did balance the budget in 1995‌ with Clinton.​ It can be done. ‌But it requires a White House and a Congress to make those‍ changes. It takes someone like Reagan who created the Grace Commission.” He added that only one candidate for​ president this year has brought up earmarks and that was ⁣Nikki Haley.

Why did ⁤the federal government spend $3.3 billion on office furniture ⁢during the pandemic years?

Uld save ⁣taxpayers billions of dollars. Among ‌the areas highlighted for cuts is government spending on office furniture.⁣ CAGW ​argues that during the ‍pandemic years, when small businesses were struggling and people were losing their jobs, it is outrageous that the federal government spent $3.3 billion on office furniture.

While some may ​argue⁣ that office furniture‌ is necessary for government operations, it is important to question the need for such excessive spending during critical times. The examples provided by Open the Books, such as the​ CDC’s purchase of​ solar-powered picnic tables and the State Department’s purchase of ‍recliners for its embassy, raise concerns about the prioritization of taxpayer funds.

Preston Brashers from ‌the Heritage Foundation ⁣warns that this kind of spending not ‌only contributes to the‍ federal deficit but also sets ⁢a dangerous precedent. ⁢Once ⁢these inflated numbers become part ⁢of ⁢the system, they become difficult to reverse, further burdening future generations.

In addition to ⁣the excessive⁣ spending on⁣ office furniture, the ‍Open the‍ Books report also highlights wasteful spending on federal government conference ⁤rooms. With the majority of⁤ meetings being held remotely during the pandemic, spending $26 ⁣million on conference rooms seems unnecessary and wasteful.

The overall problem lies​ in the persistence of earmarks and the lack of accountability when it comes to government spending. Tom Schatz, President of Citizens Against Government Waste, ⁣notes that the government has never learned to ⁣live without earmarks. This practice allows politicians to direct funds to their ​home ‌districts, often for projects that may not be essential or directly related to the well-being of the country.

Congressman Chuck Fleischmann’s case serves as an example of ⁢the misuse of earmarks. Despite the prohibition on earmarks, he⁢ received a significant amount of funding for a water project in his district. This kind of behavior undermines‌ the integrity of ⁢the system and raises questions about fairness and transparency in government⁢ spending.

As concerned citizens, it is our responsibility to question and demand accountability for government spending. The examples presented in the‍ Open the Books report demonstrate the urgent need for reform​ and a more responsible approach to⁤ budget appropriations. We must pressure our elected ‌officials⁣ to prioritize taxpayer dollars and ensure that spending is directed towards essential programs and services, especially⁢ during times of crisis.

In conclusion, the outrageous government spending on office furniture during the pandemic years raises serious concerns ⁣about prioritization and accountability. It is crucial for watchdog organizations, citizens, and lawmakers to work together to advocate for responsible spending practices and put an end to wasteful earmarks. Only through these efforts can we ⁣ensure a more​ efficient⁤ and transparent government that truly serves the needs and interests of⁢ the American people.