Can we all say Awwww
 

Apparently there is turmoil on Capital Hill as the democrats have revealed an idea that is going to destroy the families of congressmen everywhere...5 day work weeks.

To which one republican replied...

Gee, Jack. Sorry you can no longer make $165,200 a year for a three day workweek. I'm sure you have the sympathy of Americans everywhere.

Quick! Call the whaaambulance!

Congressman weren't taking four days a week off. They have things they have to do in their districts too. And better they be working on "constrituent affairs" at the home office than legislating at the national one.

Thanks for the explainer, Alex.

"Democrats could care less about families"?????

How about the families that have to work 2 or 3 jobs and never ever see their kids and make way less than that??

And how lame to blame it on being Democrat.

If they were working in their districts as well, when did they see their families, anyways? You know they took time off, etc.

Which may be a valid argument, but "My poor family, whaaaa," hardly is.

That's true. You can only claim a 3 day workweek if you consider the few weeks Congress was actually in session. There were many more weeks when Congress didn't meet at all. This Congress hasn't even APPROACHED a 3 day workweek.

:p Yes, I'm being obtuse. I don't think it's practical or necessary to have Congress in session 5 days a week, but I definitely expect more out of them than what we've been getting.

Excellent.

Now in addition to the inherent tension between parties Hoyer is adding dissension within the party.

Gridlock. It's what for dinner. :)

Well, since presumably their families live in their district (though quite a few congressman move their families to Washington when in session), I would guess that just like any job they got to spend the night in their own bed with their own spouse with their own children somewhere else in the house.

I'm not saying that whining "democrats hate families" is fair. But neither is it fair to say that 3 work days in Washington and 2 work days (which is actually 4 because most congressman aren't sitting around gardening on the weekends) at home is evidence of laziness or sloth.

Also note that Hoyer is a Congressman who can drive home and sleep in his own bed every single night if he wants to (I have no idea if he does, just that getting rid of travel days isn't necessary a burden on him that it would be for his colleagues from the west coast.

Imagine a job that required your regular presence in two cities. Not only is this a big stress on families (ANY family, regardless of profession) but then you're employer essentially says: and to maximize your time in the office you have to do all the traveling on weekends. Yes, congressman are well compensated (though not as well compensated as most of them would be in private employment) but that doesn't make you bitch less about it. I know a guy who makes several million a year who throws a royal fit every time his job requires him to be away from home on the weekend.

True, being away from home is hard all around. But, they signed up for it.

And, as Scrooge McSam stated, how often did they really even do that 3 day work week? I seem to recall them having to play catch up quite often at the end? Or I am thinking of the State budgets?

Sure they'd make more money in the private sector but they aren't.

Hmmm. I don't think I even need to compare them to our military and their sacrifices. This is a dificult time for all. I appreciate your explanation but I still think their whining is in poor taste. And another stab at Dems.

You know, maybe a "5-day work week" isn't such a bad thing...the more time these idiot politicians spend AWAY from their children, the lower the chance that the kids turn into idiots themselves.

I think it bares pointing out that the outgoing congress was in session for the fewest number of days in 50 years. Fewer than the 1948 "Do Nothing Congress". They failed to perform their single most important job, agreeing on appropriations. Other than defense and homeland security, all appropriations bills are in a state of limbo, with emergency non-committal versions being continuously renewed, leaving mandated programs underfunded, and preventing any sort of transparency or oversight into federal spending.

So while there may be valid arguments against mandating a full 5 day work week, clearly something needs to be done to get these people to actually show up and perform their job.

I think you are falling for a failed premise that many progresive/socialists do in seeing government Service as a Job.

When your spending money influence and the power of duress like a drunken sailor perhaps some time passed out in a figurative alley will do the country good.

If putting some dismissive political label that lets you put me in a box makes you feel good have fun. But the fact remains that this congress failed to perform their most basic Constitutional function (create a working budget). That should not be acceptable to anyone of any political ilk.

Is it socialist to use commas?

I work for the government. Trust me, it's a job. Try working just one day at mine. You won't be so dismissive of the hard work we do. :mad:

I used to work for the government. It was barely a job and nobody worked very hard.

I think that by "government service" Tramspotter is referring to elected office, but I had to read his post four times to figure out where the puncuation needed to go for the sentences to make sense so I could be wrong.

Yes Alex did parse my meaning on the button. Sorry for the confusion. I was refering to Govenment service=elected office holders.

Civil service is a different bag... though, in light of all the thought police harshing, quivering lip whining, and general bul****/negative mojo let me requalify my relitively benign statment instead say I recomend a general pounding of sand.

And GD: Pot, Kettle, Black.

Is that enough commas for you, MBC? (and while not outright socialist commas are usally pinko IMO)

Umm, no idea what you're referring to, but whatever. You still haven't said anything to dissuade me from my position that this session of Congress was a abject failure.

I am not trying to dissuade you from that position (self made box) or the series of positions and rules that you laydown for others yet can't seem to follow yourself.

However my point that you continue to sidestep by getting all bent does in a way sidestep yours so I can see why you might see it as "Dismissive."

My Position is that we are better served by a government that does little to nothing substansial, than one that overreaches and meddles and makes a mokery of oversight.

Your entire point that the government must have a concensus budget passed or it is an abject failure IMO is a big ol red herring.

Interum stop gap spending of absolutely essensal programs at current levels is automatic. And those programs that do not get funded and start screaming the loudest get emergency funding those that are unworthy yet scream bitch and mule for funding get the added benifit of public oversight.

Anyone of any Ilk should be able to at least grasp the alternate without feeling thier own position is attacked, well anyone with a point that is worth defending.

Chosing to argue that alternate is of course completely optional.

And as far as Mr Kettle is concerned I am continualy astounded by how someone with such a dismissive argumentitive style is so easily riled up when his own iron clad arguments are poo pooed in any real or precieved way.

Well, there should have been one between "socialist" and "commas" in the above link but whose counting. :)

who's

Dagnabit! :mad: ;)

That'll learn me.

Oh look, actual talking points instead of labels, finally something to respond to.

Emergency supplemental spending is a load of crap. It's allowed our budget to bloat to enormous size, spending it on programs that need to be trimmed. It doesn't renew things at the same level, it renews things at the same level of inflation. So not only are the hard decisions about what funding should be cut not being made, those budget items are continually increasing in size. Thanks to the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, emergency spending bills are devoid of the level of justification and spending limits that appropriately-passed budgets are subject to.

I may have liberal social views, but government bloat pisses me off. And to see a congressman in a congress that has been too busy finding ways to over fund their pet projects whining about the prospect of actually keeping their butts in Washington to perform the function for which they were elected is pathetic. Just because Congress manages to find ways to get money spent does not mean they are fulfilling their duty of overseeing the budget. They are completely skirting around it, and it surprises me to see someone who is usually rather rabidly on the side of smaller government arguing for one of the most bloat-inducing practices in recent political memory.

I added to it by not being clear but you are confusing stop-gap under Continued Resolution funding which adds no new items and is usually lower than the budgets that were not passed in the first place and Emergency Suplemental (IE Iraq war funding and Katrina relief) to which riders and pork usualy cling to like socks to a nylon blanket fresh out of the dryer...

And as for bloat I remember you piling on to the "Contract on America" when there were actual reforms with a good chance of passing that would on the face of them reign in spending on pork. Were you in favor of a ballanced budget amendment? Dems and republiocrats killed it but good completely misrepresenting a decrease in the rate of groth as draconian cuts. Cuts that would literaly steal school lunches from the hands of kids etc etc. Same deal for line item veto or attempts to kill the horific beast that enables the yearly lurch towards expansionism the Omnibus spending Bill; a practice that I am sure the new spendthrift congress won't pick back up...

I have no love for pork spending Republicans but if there was a Democratic alternitive stripped of pet pork projects that had full party support that was less than the republican budget and taking Iraq/Katrina out of the equasion which both passed last year with bipartisan support. If they could leave that piggybank off the table and still do better then I would conceede that democrats would have a better shot at implementing sound financial stewardship of public funds... I doubt you could provide it though since the Democrat alternatives I found were consistantly 17-19 Billion more than the current CR and the alternitives that show it lower than the presidents proposed budget seem each to take the difference retroactively and wholly out of proposed IRAQ spending or from budgeted non emergency DOD.

Oh and before you think oh ooooh oooh I found one I would also apriciate not being taxed up the arse to do it either.

I hope so mister leave chastising us gramaticaly chalenged to the pro's :coffee:

Again, what have I said that has anything to do with Democrat vs. Republican, liberal vs. conservative? The whole Congressional attitude for the last couple of decades has created this mess. And it's come to a head with a Congress that spent the most and spent the least amount of time and effort to stem it. It happened to be a Republican controlled congress, but nowhere did I put the blame on Republicans for that. Is there a correlation? Perhaps, but I don't really give crap. All I care is that whomever is in there gets off their butt and reverses this idiotic trend.

First I took issue with with your idea that Congressional elected service should be treated like some sort of job and not as a privelidge and stewardship and responsibility.

1. Carere politicians usualy = bad government

Then I took issue with your pragmatic idea that spending taxpayers money in washington should be a sit down and get it done no matter what compromises must be made sit in timeout type simple issue well that combined with even people of your ilk should understand toned post (Hence Kettle ref)

2. Congress not using power of the purse / Gridlock = prefered by me usualy opposed to the sloppy hand of government unleashed when they do

And finally I make the case that when Idealistic fiscal & religious conservatives layed out the contract with America most of the <<<stand alone legislation>>> related to getting spending and congresses own house in order as you claim to want to achieve was torpedoed roundly by Democrats with help from a large the lets not rock the boat and keep the gravy flowing Republican contingent.

No variants or fixes to these sweeping proposals have since dared been offered. Most Socialists and progressives were out motherfvcking their "Contract on America" which would have made it far harder to spend like a drunken sailor and add pork riders on bills...

3. Many still sitting in Congress voted down these self restrictive reforms those that proposed them had big bucks thrown against them. You go in trying to reform the beast and it will try and eat you for breakfast.

I would like to think better of this new congress and what they say they want to do but many of them were there then and were hardly constructive or onboard with this type of reform. They might say they are there to clean house but all I see is the same warmed over socialist BS no real reform just shifting power pushing an agenda and rewriting the rules to ensure their continued rule.

wheee- lookit how long that lasted-LOL

Football- LOL- yeah, that outweighs the "agenda"

heehee

Link

Every time a law is passed the liberty bell rings a little duller......I am glad they are only going to work 4 days:)

Four days? They were only working three days per week!

If the average American can work five days a week, so can Congress. They are no better than we are, and we pay their salary!

I thought we had already been over this. In this thread.

The number of days in session on the hill does not reflect the number of days they work. Congress members make frequent trips to their home districts and while in town regularly meet with constituents (or lobbyists) work in informal ad-hoc groups, and do plenty else to stay busy. If your vision is that they work three of four days a week and take the rest off then I'm afraid you are mistaken. Any move to increase the time spent on the hill would in fact be counterproductive.

Oh. Errrr on second thought. Let's make them work 6-Days a week on the hill.

I'm not politically adept enough to argue much on this issue, I just wanted to point out that a recent Rolling Stone had a huge article on this subject recently. I'm somewhat baffled by people that are defending this congress. Is it because you voted for it's leader and you don't want to feel stupid?

While I agree that a 5 day work-week is unrealistic considering the logistics involved in holding offices at home and in Washington, I can't agree with this statement. There's got to be a balance point somewhere between allowing them personal time, time to work locally, and getting their butts in their congrssional chairs to perform the duties for which they were elected. The last session of congress was tipped way too far towards the former two parts of that equation.

Can you honestly tell me that you really believe that they go to meetings (or do any work at all) every weekend they go home? Please!

Until just a few years ago, Congress Members did not fly home every weekend (at taxpayer expense, I might add). They stayed in Washington while Congress was in session. I see no reason why they can't go back to that.

My congressperson recently answered an email query from my brother within minutes. Personally. At some hour when reasonable folks have been asleep for a few hours. Doesn't mean he's the hardest working pol on the hill, but perceptions count and we were impressed.

Therefore, it must be the rest of you whose congresspeople are slackers.

We had a fantastic Congressperson in Tom Foley, and then other people went and voted in that nimrod George Netherbutt. I know Tom worked especially hard, because for years my mom worked for him and the guy was an absolute workhorse. Netherbutt was a waste of time and space.

And in Mark Foley, we had a fantastic page.

Or two.

I don't understand why a district would vote out the speaker of the house. We don't usually have a lot going for us over in that "other Washington." We need all the clout we can get.

Look up Foley vs the People of the State of washington

People bought into that stupid term limits crap, which Netherbutt promptly weasled out of when his time was up. What a creep he was, too. Screwed people I know out of inheritances when he was an attorney, never met with constituents unless they were financial supporters, etc. Foley wouldn't have been Speaker anymore anyway, as the Repubs took control of the House that year, so perhaps it worked out better for him.

I will agree with you on that point WB....Nethercutt was a creep. To campaign and win soley on term limits then turn around and ignore them when it was no longer convenient---no class.

But isn't someone who can admit they were wrong worth our respect?

Speaker of the House is not a position that seems to end well in recent years.

Dennis Hastert 1999-2006 (managed to lose position without any particular humiliation but his party was resoundingly tossed)
Newt Gingrich 1995-1999 (took blame for seat losses in 1998 election and resigned both position and seat in congress)
Tom Foley 1989-1995 (unpopularly sues home state to overturn term limits and gets voted out of office; first since 1860 to be so defeated)
Jim Wright 1987-1989 (after ethics investigation he resigned the post and then his seat a month later)

Then a decade of calm:
Tip O'Neill 1977-1987 (Retired from office still holding the position)

Back to trouble:
Carl Albert 1971-1977 ("retired" after allegations of taking bribes from a lobbyist that turned out to be affiliated with South Korean intelligence)

Personally, since Sam Rayburn kicked it the position doesn't seem to have attracted America's best.

Then what did he do?

Uh, nothing much. Am I not getting something?

No, it's me that is not getting something. I sometimes get George Mitchel mixed up with Jim Wright. Color me embarassed.