I pride myself on being a pretty good congressional watcher. For that reason I was dumbfounded when I discovered that the current 109th United States Congress has only met 103 out of the 365 days it was in session! I’m not sure why this little tidbit escaped me or why I was so surprised, but somehow I should’ve expected it, considering what little got accomplished this year. Another clue should’ve been all those empty seats while watching C-Span.
What that means to us taxpayers in round figures is that our Republican-led representatives earned their $165,000 yearly salaries by working (when you could find them in session) from late Tuesday night to Thursday afternoon. That works out to two half-days (Tuesday and Thursday) and one full day (Wednesday) per week. For being forced to work that torturous and grueling schedule our faithful representatives voted themselves a fat six-figure annual check, an exemption from paying Social Security taxes and generous retirement pensions.
The method I found this out was much less surprising. A fuming Georgia Republican Representative named Jack Kingston recently branded the Democratic Party anti-family:
"Keeping us up here eats away at families. Marriages suffer. The Democrats could care less about families — that's what this says."Incoming House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D) Maryland, announced that the 110th Congress would begin conducting votes on legislation between 6:30 P.M. Monday through 2 P.M. on Friday come January. He also alluded to a more robust schedule that wasn’t going to observe the usual wait until after President George Bush’s State of the Union Address. To make matters worse, the March break has been canceled and our poor lawmakers will only have a week of vacation in April instead of two.
Perhaps Representative Kingston just assumed that the Republicans would coast into office again last month. In any case his indignation flies right in the face of all common American workers who have maybe a two-week vacation per year and have to work 254 days annually to make ends meet.
It is yet to be seen if the Democrat-led Senate will follow suit.
In my opinion, the Georgia Republican should’ve considered his loss of family time before he ran for Congress, or at least had made plans to move his kin to Washington.
What’s even more ridiculous is how he tried to divert attention from the outrageously light schedule the current “do-nothing” congress has enjoyed. Kingston has attempted to rally the Religious Right to his cause. Somehow I don’t think screaming “Anti-Family!” is going to fool or divert too many people.
Or at least I hope not anyway
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Jet in Columbus
Well let the mad rush begin to see the GOP pass as much legislation as possible before they lose power.
Something they should've done months ago.
2 - Baronius
That government is best which governs least! Oh, never mind. I got nothing. Still, Hoyer's district is a half-circle around DC, so he can hardly grandstand about his commute.
3 - Jet in Columbus
You're right Baronius, I think I might have found one that'll have little argument. Of course I probably just jinxed myself.
Jet
4 - Tim
It's so rough having to actually work for that six-figure salary! What a bunch of whiners.
5 - Jet in Columbus
True Tim, and when the Dems come in there and clean house, it'll be branded partisan politics.
(groan)
6 - Bliffle
GWB sets the example: he only has a 40% attendance record at HIS job.
7 - Jet in Columbus
You're telling me Blif!!! When is George IN the white house for more than 10 days? At least with Clinton it took a prybar, a slut, a jealous wife and and act of congress to get the man out of the white house.
Did Clinton even HAVE an alternate "white house" like Bush's ranch?
8 - Jet in Columbus
According to all accounts the Republican led 109th congress was the most useless in modern times. They spent nearly twice as much time off than in session, and didn't even succeed in one of their most primary of duties... passing a budget.
9 - Joe
Congrats hippies; now the Democrats are in charge and will double their work week? Great! Now they can regulate twice as much and twice as fast! No part of our lives will be too trivial to dictate, heck, they've got plenty of time. Damn fools.
10 - Jet in Columbus
That was very cute Joe. Stick you head back up your ass and ignore the fact that the 109th congress did nearly next to nothing except to rubberstamp Bush and sit on their asses.
11 - Joe
Jet, do you always contradict yourself in every other comment? I prefer a congress that does next to nothing. In fact, absolutely nothing would be even better. [Deleted]
12 - Arch Conservative
After 40 years of the Democrats ineffective bullshit social welfare programs, government handouts, and failed social engineering the deadbeat leftists are bitching because Congress isn't working 40 hours a week?
And I'm sure we all believe that the Dems in congress went kicking and screaming as the GOP forced them to vote to give themselves a pay raise and take all those days off.
There have been some pretty fucking stupid articles on BC but this one takes the cake.
13 - Jet in Columbus
Not since the congress of Harry S. Truman as one done worse. The Congress has two main objectives. One-to pass a budget. Two to balance out the power of the executive and the judicial branch, neither of which this congress has done.
In fact, they were in session almost as much as Bush was in the white house.
Sound to me like a sore loser.
[Edited]
14 - Jet in Columbus
THANK GOD! Arch hates this article, that means it's good! Sore losers day I guess. pretty pathetic if you ask me when as little as they had to do to earn their paychecks that they couldn't even pass a budget and passed a stop-gap measure instead.
Thanks again Arch
If you'd liked it, I'd be really upset.
Love
Jet
15 - RedTard
I have no idea, but I would suspect that even with the short work week they put in significant hours. It helps if in addition to voting on stuff in session they actually have time to sit down and read what they're voting on.
I completely agree with you on one point, put em back on Social Security, the great plan they sold everyone else.
16 - Clavos
I have to agree with Joe. The less they do, the better off the country is.
Nancy's word for them, Congressmaggots, fits very well...
17 - Jet in Columbus
Better yet make them LIVE on social security Red to make them realize what they've done to otheres.
According to Kingston the good christian, the off days were spent with his family, so the extra time would've been moot... if you believe that load of horse shit.
Thanks for your thoughts red.
Jet
18 - Jet in Columbus
Clavos the purpose of Congress is to keep the country from turning into a kingdom and allowing the president anything he wants without any checks and balances.
Are your eally advocating that?
19 - Clavos
Actually, the purpose of Congress is to legislate, as you point out above.
We already have way more legislation than we need; therefore, the less they do, the better. IMO.
Historically, whether congress is democrat dominated or republican, the more they actually pass legislation, the more the middle class (read taxpayers) takes it on the chin.
You wanna stop Bush from becoming a "king", let SCOTUS do it. That's what IT is for...
20 - Jet in Columbus
Somehow with Bush "stacking the deck" at the supreme court, I don't see that happening Clavos.
21 - pepperoma
Geez! All this yadda, yadda! I think Kingston has it right! How horrible that Congress be forced to keep the same work week as the rest of us working stiffs!
I say let them have their 3-day work week.
...and the rest of the country can follow their wise example. See how family-friendly I am? (I should really run for president....)
22 - Jet in Columbus
There you go Pepperoma, let them put their money where their mouths are and give every one a three day week.
What's that song from the Wizard of Oz?
We get up at noon and start to work at one,
Take an hour for lunch and then at two we're done
23 - Clavos
1. All Presidents attempt to "stack the deck," as you put it; it's one of the prerogatives of the Presidency.
2. Bush has actually appointed only two (out of nine) Justices: Roberts and Alito; hardly "stacking."
3. Liberal Presidents appoint liberal Justices; conservative Presidents appoint conservative Justices -- that's how it's done.
24 - Jet in Columbus
Uh Clavos, Roberts is the Chief Justice, I call that stacking the deck.
25 - Clavos
Call it what you want; it's one of the Presidential duties to fill vacant SCOTUS seats.
It's their prerogative (and they ALL take it) to fill vacancies with Justices who reflect their own political philosophy; so it's sophistry to accuse Bush of "stacking the deck."