Quote :

"WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives is on track this year to be in session for fewer days than the Congress Harry Truman labeled as “do-nothing” during his 1948 re-election campaign. Members of Congress are taking an entire week off for St. Patrick's Day. It's the latest scheduling innovation to give members more time to meet with constituents. Through Friday, the House was in session for 19 days, compared with 33 for the Senate. If they stick to their current schedule — including two weeks off in April, a week in May and July, plus all of August — House members will spend 97 days in Washington this year. The House was in session 108 days in 1948, according to the chamber's archives, compared with 141 days last year. “This is an election year and people want to see more of their constituents,” says House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. During the first two months of the year, House members logged a total of 47 hours in the Capitol. They took off almost the entire month of January , while the Senate confirmed Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. For both chambers, workweeks have become short in recent years. Roll call votes are seldom scheduled for Mondays or Fridays. In the House, they are often postponed until late Tuesday. As a result, it's difficult to schedule committee meetings. Some panels meet when Congress is not in session, but not often. When in Washington, lawmakers do a lot of multitasking. Last week, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., struggled to ready an immigration bill for the full Senate, as panel members drifted in and out of the room. They were juggling a floor debate on the budget and other meetings. Critics contend Congress needs time to discuss important issues. “The Tuesday-to-Thursday work schedule is a detriment,” says Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif., who served five terms in the House during the 1980s and returned last year. [b]Some experts think an absentee Congress is not bad. “I don't think there's anything wrong with them being out of Washington,” says John Samples of the Cato Institute, a think tank that favors limited government. “They might be better representatives.” Lawmakers will make $165,200 this year. Leaders earn more.[b] "

so if we take that an average workday for congress is say 10hrs, at 97 days, (and don't include other things such as meeting consituents...)that means these guys make $838/hr they are in session

1) Get to work, and do what you are supposed to do
2) I think I need to run for congress!!!!
3) Why do we pay these guys so much?????
4) Why didn't I get a week off work for St. Patrick's Day???? Think of the partying you missed out on!!!

3/20/2006 12:05:32 PM

And these are the people we want in control of our healthcare?

3/20/2006 12:23:23 PM

3/20/2006 12:23:38 PM

they basically get to set their own salary, don't they?

3/20/2006 12:28:29 PM

^ Kinda. It doesn't come into affect until after the next election.

3/20/2006 1:44:58 PM

You act like they only work while in session. I'm sure they do some kinda of work (research on laws, meeting with the people they represent, etc.) while they are not in session. Then again most of their hours are probably logged to things like eating dinners with lobbyist and campaigning for their party.

3) Why do we pay these guys so much?????
So they will be very well-to-do and therefore be less likely to take any bribes... theoretically.

3/20/2006 2:15:35 PM

they aren't paid THAT much, geez..

3/20/2006 3:52:09 PM

I would say that all but a handful fall into the top 1% of tax-payers.

3/20/2006 4:10:28 PM

i would say that point has nothing to do with the above comment

3/20/2006 4:42:53 PM

everything wrong with the country is Dubyah's fault, he makes all the laws and everything!!!!
congress is never to blame for anything


glad someone finally pointed out a realistic problem,
congress meeting for less than a third of the year is ridiculous,
there job is to be in the capitol working for the country, not
running after their own interests in getting re-elected

3/20/2006 5:55:26 PM

I wish I could make a difference.

3/20/2006 6:14:36 PM

me too

3/20/2006 6:17:18 PM

Quote :

"3) Why do we pay these guys so much?????"

dude, i think that $165k/year is quite reasonable for that job.

3/20/2006 6:30:09 PM

Quote :

"running after their own interests in getting re-elected"

Thomas Jefferson vs. Fry

Go!

3/20/2006 8:29:59 PM

Jefferson is dead. I win.

3/20/2006 10:28:41 PM

I would gladly pay them a whole lot more to work a whole lot less.

[Edited on March 20, 2006 at 10:33 PM. Reason : ]

3/20/2006 10:33:26 PM

Congress doesn't have much to do anymore since they have ceded all power to the executive branch.

3/20/2006 11:25:14 PM

[/thread]

3/20/2006 11:46:10 PM

^^, ^^^

3/21/2006 1:14:59 AM

Quote :

"there job is to be in the capitol working for the country, not running after their own interests in getting re-elected"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there no term limit on Congressional positions? If this is the case, I say we establish or impose a term limit (like with the President), maybe two terms or so.

I agree with you. If a politician spends most of his time trying to get re-elected instead of doing the things that he promised (hence why the fucker got voted in the first place), what's the point of him holding that position? Some days it feels like these people in DC only want their positions for the sake of having them.

3/22/2006 10:57:24 AM

i would love term limits as much as the next guy

but seniority does have a value

to a point

was it the newt gingrich republicans that had self imposed term limits that most of them have kept

3/22/2006 11:43:20 AM