Does the US House Use Its Resource Efficiently？

By looking at the data that we are going to investigate, we may raise the question, “What do these tables reveal about the spending of the US House? Is the US House using its resources effectively and efficiently?” Well, we can directly use the data to analyze the top expenditures of the US House, but for the second question, we can have some discussion based on the data that we have. So first let’s take a look at the data itself.

As we look into the data, we see that some of the top programs with the most significant expenditure are the Official Expenses of Members and Government Contributions. On the other hand, the least expensive programs include the CAO TV Program, Summer Camp, and New Members Orientation.

The top offices with the most expenditure are the Government Contributions, Chief Admin of the House, Clerk of the House, Committee on Appropriations, and Fiscal Year 2020 Chief Admin OFCR of the House, respectively. Meanwhile, the least expensive offices.

The categories that had the most expenditure include equipment, personnel compensation, other services, personnel benefits, and supplies and materials. The least expensive categories, on the other hand, include transportation of things, benefits to former personnel, franked mail, printing and reproduction, and travel.

As we look at the purpose of the expenditure, we see that the highest amount of expenditure is on Office, Personnel Compensation, and Official Expenses of Members. Meanwhile, the least expensive purposes for expenditure include Non-Statutory Comp, Student Loan Payment, etc.

After viewing these data, we can’t help thinking are these expenses really used efficiently? We know that the government spends the most money on the Official Expenses of Members, but is it necessary for the government to spend so much money on the Official Expenses of Members? Could there be any ways that we can do to reduce the amount spent on personnel compensation while still attracting and retaining talented individuals to work for the government? Also, it is surprising to see that the new member orientation program, which is designed to support new members joining the government, is one of the least funded programs. The purpose of the program is to provide an opportunity for new members to get themselves familiarized with the institution and its rules and regulations. Given the importance of the orientation and the guidance, the funds allocated for the program seem to be insufficient.

It is important to note that the top-funded offices in the Government Contributions office and the Chief Admin Officer of the House office. While it may seem logical for the Government Contributions office to receive the most funding, it is interesting to see the Chief Admin Officer of the House office receives so much funding. This seems to me that the House is focused heavily on ensuring that its administrative operations are adequately funded, which is commendable. However, the funding allocated for the Clerk of the House office, which oversees the actual day-to-day work of the House, seems to be insufficient.

As for the categories, it is common to see that personnel compensation is the most funded category, given the total number of employees that the House has. However, it is interesting to see that equipment receives more funding than personnel benefits, suggesting that the House values its technological infrastructure building more than the benefits it provides to its employees.

Lastly, the top-funded purpose in the third quarter of 2021 is the Office category, which means that the House is focused on maintaining the operations of its offices. However, it is important to note that Personnel Compensation is the second most funded purpose, suggesting that the House also values its employees and their work.

In conclusion, while there are some surprising trends in the US House disbursement data, the funding decisions seem to be focused on maintaining the operations of the House and ensuring that its employees are compensated fairly. However, the funding allocated for some programs, such as the new member orientation program, seems to be insufficient, and it would be beneficial for the House to re-evaluate its funding decisions to ensure that all important programs receive the necessary funding.