Congressman Ted Yoho Defends His Vote Against John Boehner's Speakership
U.S. Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla., issued a statement Thursday evening defending his vote for U.S. Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., for speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, against incumbent and re-electee John Boehner.
Many conservatives and libertarians from within the Republican Party have lambasted Boehner for what they believe to be his compromise on key party principles.
“I came to Congress for a cause – not a job," Yoho said in his press release. "I came here to make a difference and to stand up for what is right for America – not a political party. The gridlock in Washington is killing the American republic. The people that I represent have had enough.
Many conservatives and libertarians from within the Republican Party have lambasted Boehner for what they believe to be his compromise on key party principles.
“I came to Congress for a cause – not a job," Yoho said in his press release. "I came here to make a difference and to stand up for what is right for America – not a political party. The gridlock in Washington is killing the American republic. The people that I represent have had enough.
“My vote today for Congressman Cantor was a signal that I will hold leadership accountable and challenge leadership when I feel that it is the right thing to do – just like I am held accountable to the people of my district. However, it was also a signal that I believe in team work and will work with leadership to get things done. Congressman Cantor is part of leadership.
“We have gotten lost. What I have seen from the Republican party is the rearranging of the deck chairs on the Titanic. Our ship called America is sinking. We have to right the ship.
“We are in dire need of strong leadership that is willing to put our nation first – not a political party. I am looking forward to getting to work and restoring the faith of the American people in their elected officials.
Yoho, widely expected to make a name for himself as one of the most staunchly conservative members of the House, represents North Central Florida’s 3rd Congressional District. He is a large-animal veterinarian and conservative business owner by trade.
Check out our August exclusive interview with Yoho.
Previous
Next
4 comments
Comments (4)
3:26PM JAN 10TH 2013
I had high hopes for you, but I am sadly disappointed. You are not putting your nation first - you are putting your loyalty to the Tea Party first. The Tea Party is the party of NO. NO I won't cooperate or compromise. NO I won't vote for relief for Sandy victims. You and your Tea Party buddies are the reason we have gridlock in Washington.
7:17AM JAN 6TH 2013
When a company falls on difficult times, one of the things that seems to happen is they reduce their staff and workers. The remaining workers must find ways to continue to do a good job or risk that their job would be eliminated as well.
Wall street and the media normally congratulate the CEO for making this type of "tough decision",
Our government should not be immune from similar risks.
Therefore:
Reduce the House of Representatives from the current 435 members to 218 members.
Reduce Senate members from 100 to 50 (one per State). Then, reduce their remaining staff by 25%.
Accomplish this over the next 8 years (two steps/two elections) and of course this would require some redistricting.
Some Yearly Monetary Gains Include:
$44,108,400 for elimination of base pay for congress. (267 members X $165 ,200 pay/member/ yr.)
$437,100,000 for elimination of their staff. (Estimate $1.3 Million in staff per each member of the House, and $3 Million in staff per each member of the Senate every year)
$108,350,000 for the reduction in remaining staff by 25%.
$7,500,000,000reduction in pork barrel earmarks each year. (Those members whose jobs are gone. Current estimates for total government pork earmarks are at $15 Billion/yr).
The remaining representatives would need to work smarter and improve efficiencies.. It might even be in their best interests to work together for the good of our country!
We may also expect that smaller committees might lead to a more efficient resolution of issues as well. It might even be easier to keep track of what your representative is doing.
Congress has more tools available to do their jobs than it had back in 1911 when the current number of representatives was established. (Telephone, computers, cell phones to name a few)
Note:
Congress does not hesitate to head home for extended weekends, holidays and recesses, when what the nation needs is a real fix for economic problems. Also, we had 3 senators who were not doing their jobs for the 18+ months (on the campaign trail) and still they all accepted full pay. Minnesota survived very well with only one senator for the first half of this year. These facts alone support a reduction in senators and congress.
Summary of opportunity:
$44,108,400 reduction of congress members.
$282,100,000 for elimination of the reduced house member staff.
$150,000,000 for elimination of reduced senate member staff.
$70,850,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining house members.
$37,500,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining senate members.
$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork added to bills by the reduction of congress members.
$8,084,558,400 per year, estimated total savings. (That's 8-BILLION just to start!)
Corporate America does these types of cuts all the time.
There's even a name for it.
"Downsizing."
------------------------------
Also, if Congress persons were required to serve 20, 25 or 30 years (like everyone else) in order to collect retirement benefits, taxpayers could save a bundle.
Now they get full retirement after serving only ONE term.
----------------------------------------
IF you are happy with how Washington spends our taxes, delete this message.
Otherwise, it's time to "downsize" Congress.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please consider forwarding, if you agree.
Wall street and the media normally congratulate the CEO for making this type of "tough decision",
Our government should not be immune from similar risks.
Therefore:
Reduce the House of Representatives from the current 435 members to 218 members.
Reduce Senate members from 100 to 50 (one per State). Then, reduce their remaining staff by 25%.
Accomplish this over the next 8 years (two steps/two elections) and of course this would require some redistricting.
Some Yearly Monetary Gains Include:
$44,108,400 for elimination of base pay for congress. (267 members X $165 ,200 pay/member/ yr.)
$437,100,000 for elimination of their staff. (Estimate $1.3 Million in staff per each member of the House, and $3 Million in staff per each member of the Senate every year)
$108,350,000 for the reduction in remaining staff by 25%.
$7,500,000,000reduction in pork barrel earmarks each year. (Those members whose jobs are gone. Current estimates for total government pork earmarks are at $15 Billion/yr).
The remaining representatives would need to work smarter and improve efficiencies.. It might even be in their best interests to work together for the good of our country!
We may also expect that smaller committees might lead to a more efficient resolution of issues as well. It might even be easier to keep track of what your representative is doing.
Congress has more tools available to do their jobs than it had back in 1911 when the current number of representatives was established. (Telephone, computers, cell phones to name a few)
Note:
Congress does not hesitate to head home for extended weekends, holidays and recesses, when what the nation needs is a real fix for economic problems. Also, we had 3 senators who were not doing their jobs for the 18+ months (on the campaign trail) and still they all accepted full pay. Minnesota survived very well with only one senator for the first half of this year. These facts alone support a reduction in senators and congress.
Summary of opportunity:
$44,108,400 reduction of congress members.
$282,100,000 for elimination of the reduced house member staff.
$150,000,000 for elimination of reduced senate member staff.
$70,850,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining house members.
$37,500,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining senate members.
$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork added to bills by the reduction of congress members.
$8,084,558,400 per year, estimated total savings. (That's 8-BILLION just to start!)
Corporate America does these types of cuts all the time.
There's even a name for it.
"Downsizing."
------------------------------
Also, if Congress persons were required to serve 20, 25 or 30 years (like everyone else) in order to collect retirement benefits, taxpayers could save a bundle.
Now they get full retirement after serving only ONE term.
----------------------------------------
IF you are happy with how Washington spends our taxes, delete this message.
Otherwise, it's time to "downsize" Congress.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please consider forwarding, if you agree.
5:58PM JAN 5TH 2013
the folks that misguidedly elected this heartless bast... need to begin if possible to start recall proceedings this goes for the other idiot from my state including our newly elected Senator from the nether regions.l
5:19PM JAN 4TH 2013
Can't wait to hear his rationale for voting against the Sandy emergency funding . . . . .incredible . . . .
