It is a time of fear in the face of freedom, a time for the widening of previous roads and the opening of new paths, a time of an emptying country and swelling cities, yet a time when these paths are mined by knowing algorithms of the all-seeing eye. It is the time of the warrior's peace and the miser's charity, when the planting of a seed is an act of conscientious objection.
 | The Republican Do-Nothing Congress: Cavalier or Just Plain Lazy? |
In his latest Tuesday column, Richard Reeves notes that
The House is scheduled to meet for just 97 days this year, which is 11 days less than the “Do-Nothing Congress” Harry S. Truman successfully used as his whipping boy to win the 1948 presidential election.
97 days meeting out of 365 in a year? That’s a less than 27 percent attendance rate, for which members of Congress will earn $165,200, plus health care and a hefty pension. Could you get away with this kind of nonsense?
But it’s not as if members of Congress are supposed to be in it for the considerable money, anyway. They’re supposed to be public servants, helping to address the problems that face this country. Let’s face it: America has a lot of problems right now. In the face of all these problems, the Republicans in charge are calling the Congress into session a bare quarter of the time! What explains this nonsense? Which of the “moral values” Republicans like to assign to themselves is on display here? Do the Republicans fail to care about tackling the problems facing America, or are they just plain lazy in the face of them?
Contact Us
I’ve sometimes thought that if congressional pay was far less than it is now (say only $75,000 a year - or even less) then we would see far fewer members staying in their positions as long as they do. It simply wouldn’t be economical for most of them to take such a pay cut from what they can earn out in a normal job. The average American, however, would still see this as a pay increase so the ‘job’ would be attractive. What do you think?
Comment by Mark — 5/17/2006 @ 1:26 pm
I’ve thought something similar: what would happen if members of Congress earned the nation’s median income? There’d be a whole new set of political incentives.
Comment by Jim — 5/17/2006 @ 1:28 pm
This article, and Richard Reeves, is absolutely ridiculous. The House usually “convenes” only on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. Most Congressmen, both parties, are doing work 7 days a week. There are Congressional Hearings, constituent meetings, flying back to the district, etc. To say they are “working” only 97 days is absurd. Its like saying they take a six-week vacation over Christmas. Follow a Congressman around for that time, see how much vacationing they do - being in their home district is often much tougher than being in DC. Often times there is more distance to travel and more people to meet with. Get your facts straight before you go accusing any Congressman, on either side of the aisle, of being lazy.
Comment by Daniel — 5/17/2006 @ 3:16 pm
Daniel,
I can tell I struck a chord by the tenor of your outburst. This is indeed a Republican weak point, especially because I do after all “have my facts straight.”
The former congressional leader Lee Hamilton has written a a piece along the same lines in which he provides the history to show that this Republican Congress is indeed abysmally deficient in the number of days that they do the legislative work for which they were elected:
I guess Lee Hamilton just doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and he needs to get his facts straight?
Comment by Jim — 5/17/2006 @ 4:20 pm
There is no real reason for the House to meet for even the 97 days. Any legislatation passed is now meaningless, as the President does not use the veto, but merely adds a “statement on signing” to bills in order to be ‘above the law’.
http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2006/05/01/george-w-bush-there-are-750-laws-i-can-break-bring-back-checks-and-balances/
We are no longer a nation of law. Laws do not exist on paper where anyone can look them up; they exist in the President’s head. The President is actually doing the work of Congress by keeping the law in his head instead of having to waste money writing it down. We could save a lot of money by abolishing those meaningless House and Senate offices, and renting out Capitol Hill instead to fundamentalist mega-churches.
Comment by Alan — 5/17/2006 @ 6:05 pm
Not only do they work very little but they have the best health care money can buy AND IT’S AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE!
Comment by Tom — 5/17/2006 @ 11:04 pm
Jim, I’ve gotta give it to you, your a genious. Like I previously stated, the house only “convened” for those 47 hours. They put all the votes off until the evening, usually Thursdays, so the Congressman don’t have to travel back and forth fifty times to vote on things like, “Capitol Police Dog Recognition”. Those votes take a few seconds but if they did them throughout the week would interrupt hearings, subcommittee meetings, etc. Oh wait, you must have never worked on the hill so keep quoting how much you know about it
Comment by Daniel — 5/19/2006 @ 10:50 am