The House's Pathetic Schedule
From tomorrow until the end of this year, the House of Representatives has scheduled an underwhelming 41 days of work. This is pathetic. Call it "our taxpayer dollars not at work," if you will.
During the first half of 2012, from January through June, the House worked a grand total of 85 days. From July through December, there are only 45 days on the work schedule. That is nine weeks worth of work, to put it another way, out of six months on the calendar (roughly 26 weeks).
Counting from tomorrow on (the "rest of the year"), there are a total of 172 days on the calendar. To be fair, 50 of these are weekend days, leaving 122 weekdays. Also to be fair, there are five federal holidays in there as well, which leaves 117 non-holiday weekdays until the new year dawns. Divide 41 into 117, and you come up with the reprehensible figure of 35 percent. That's right -- your representative in the House is planning on only working a little over one-third of the rest of this year.
The two gigantic reasons for how low this number is are August and October. In August (and a week into September), the House will spend five weeks at home, doing nothing. October is campaign season, so they'll be taking another five weeks off then. Add in one week for Thanksgiving and eleven days off at the end of the year, and you can see why they'll be spending two-thirds of rest of this year not doing the People's business.
I'm using the House for these calculations, I should mention, because the publicly-posted Senate work schedule is wildly optimistic (and likely will reflect reality in the second half of 2012 no better than it did in the first half). At least Eric Cantor's honest about the schedule he posts. Which doesn't make the schedule itself any better, though.
Whenever I write one of these articles, my initial reaction is always "Dock their pay!" Why, after all, should we be paying them not to work? Unfortunately, to do so would require (sigh) an act of Congress. Which means it is about as likely to happen as squadrons of flying pigs appearing over the Washington swampland.
But that in no way prevents me from complaining about it, roughly every six months, until a few other folks notice what a terrible "return on investment" we the taxpayers are getting on our elected representatives. There is indeed, only one word to sum up the work schedule of Congress, and that word is "pathetic."
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Chris,
On the other hand, every single day that the Republican House is not in session represents a full 24-hour period when they are not doing something stupid.
By the way, may I be so bold as to nominate a certain sitting vice president for the MIDOTW award AND ask that you put Biden's name in the title of your next FTP column ... because I'm in a rather combative mood this week and, consequently, am looking forward to having a little fun on Friday. :)
http://www.c-span.org/Events/Vice-President-Biden-Addresses-NAACP-Convention/10737432283-1/
Liz,
Ol' Joe didn't pull in much of a crowd.. :D
http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/NAACP-Empty-Hall.jpg
But I guess it's quality that counts, not quantity, right?? :D
Michale.....
By the bi....
Happy Friday The 13th :D
Michale
Since we're always talking about how Democrats and Republicans disagree in Congress, it's nice to point out when they agree..
It's universal...
Lawmakers Want ‘Made in China’ U.S. Olympic Uniforms Burned
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/lawmakers-want-made-in-china-u-s-olympic-uniforms-burned/
Everyone hates the USA Olympic uniforms!! :D
I have to say that I agree....
They make our athletes look like elitist prep school snobs...
Well, I guess that's in keeping with our current Administration...
Michale.....
What does being "in session" have to do with the actual work of Congress?
Congress is supposed to receive the opinions of constituents and take them into consideration when composing legislation. Congress is supposed to provide a venue where all the contending interest-groups and issue organizations and identity-politics blocs can do battle by means of dollars and words rather than guns and IEDs. Congress is supposed to translate decisions into the kind of legalese that will preserve as much as possible of legislative intent through the semantic meat-grinder of litigation and administration.
None of these interests would be served by having 434 members at a time sit silently while the one holding the floor drones about yielding the balance of his or her time to the honorable colleague from South Dakota pending consideration of the prior question, or whatever the parliamentary gobbledygook is. Negotiation happens in offices. Deliberation, insofar as it happens at all, happens in offices. Those offices are still active regardless of whether Congress is "in session".
I had to register just to say this:
Quote: They make our athletes look like elitist prep school snobs... Well, I guess that's in keeping with our current Administration...
HUH??? What does the current president have to do with prep schools? He's a man from a middle-class background, raised by a single mother and her parents, and who had to borrow money to attend college, starting with Occidental College in California -- hardly ivy league. "Elitist?"
It was the Republican nominee who comes from a wealthy family, attended the elitist prep school where bullied fellow students he perceived as "different", now owns multiple houses and has a wife who drives "a couple of Cadillacs".
Now THAT's elitist!
dsws,
What does being "in session" have to do with the actual work of Congress? ... Those offices are still active regardless of whether Congress is "in session".
You are right, of course.
What does it have to do with the point I was making, though?
Chris: Whenever I write one of these articles, my initial reaction is always "Dock their pay!" Why, after all, should we be paying them not to work?
Folks forget that House and Senate members have constituents and offices back home. They only go to Washington to represent said constituents when congress is in session. They have another office in their state. And they work hard when they're back home. One of my dearest friends married a U.S. Senator. Trust me, there's no kick-back-and-relax time. If they're not in session in Washington, they're doing tons of meetings and speeches and events and other things at their office and all around the state.
Hi MH.. Welcome to Wegantia! :D
HUH??? What does the current president have to do with prep schools? He's a man from a middle-class background, raised by a single mother and her parents, and who had to borrow money to attend college, starting with Occidental College in California -- hardly ivy league. "Elitist?"
I wasn't referring to him growing years, but rather his political (years) such as it is..
This is the most "elitest" Administration in history..
"People cling to guns and religion".. Remember??
Calling the current administration "snobs" doesn't begin to do justice to how this current administration denigrates working (those that can find work) Americans...
It was the Republican nominee who comes from a wealthy family, attended the elitist prep school where bullied fellow students he perceived as "different", now owns multiple houses and has a wife who drives "a couple of Cadillacs".
Not necessarily...
Simply having a privileged background and upbringing, doesn't necessarily make one an elitest or a snob...
Even if Romney was "elitest" (which he may be.) He is only one person...
As opposed to an ENTIRE Administration who looks down their noses at anyone who is not of their "caliber" whatever that may be...
Michale....
MH,
But regardless of our differences over whether or not the Obama Administration is elitest or not, what do you think of the USA Olympic Uniforms??
Do you agree that they give off a Prep School, Elite Snob vibe???
Michale.....
If they're not in session in Washington, they're doing tons of meetings and speeches and events and other things at their office and all around the state.
Heheh. By "meetings and speeches and events" you mean campaigning or fund raising?
To get them to actually do some work, we'd have to reduce the need for them to fund raise.
-David
David,
Heheh. By "meetings and speeches and events" you mean campaigning or fund raising?
Gotcha....
So, what do you make of all of Obama's fund raising??
:D
To get them to actually do some work, we'd have to reduce the need for them to fund raise.
There already is a way...
Accept matching Federal Funds only..
Obama said he would in 2008, but then reneged on that promise...
Michale.....
So, what do you make of all of Obama's fund raising?
I don't believe I mentioned one side or the other. I believe money corrupts the process. Period. I believed it in 2008 and 2004 and 2006 and all of the 90s and I believe it now.
Obama said he would in 2008, but then reneged on that promise.
Any solution has to be across the board. Otherwise one side has an unfair advantage. You can't say, Obama, you can't fund raise, but your opponent can. It would be like me saying, Romney, you can't fund raise but we can.
In politics, you do what wins within the rules of the game. If money is almost always going to guarantee you the win, you pursue the most money. About the only way to change this is to change the rules of the game. For all politicians.
-David
You misunderstand me..
I am fully and completely for having candidates be limited to matching funds....
My point was the Obama was for that. Before he was against it..
In politics, you do what wins within the rules of the game.
Principles be damned??
That's the problem with politicians..
Both Democrats and Republicans have "conditional" principles...
"I thought we agreed that, if principles weren't arbitrary, they wouldn't be principles."
-Digger
"Conditional" principles ain't principles at all..
Michale.....
Any solution has to be across the board. Otherwise one side has an unfair advantage. You can't say, Obama, you can't fund raise, but your opponent can. It would be like me saying, Romney, you can't fund raise but we can.
Obama didn't renege because he thought that McCain would out fund-raise him..
Obama reneged because he was advised he could decimate McCain in the fund-raising department.
Once again, pragmatism won out over principles..
That, apparently, was a denouement to Obama's entire presidency...
Politics over principles...
Obama has proven that time and time and time again...
Michale.....
[7] Elizabeth Miller:
What does it have to do with the point I was making
Nothing. It's in response to CW's top-of-the-page post, not to anything in comments 1-4.
Michale [15]
The most important difference between the parties right now is that Dems are willing to be pragmatic. Republicans may think its a virtue to "stand by your principles" but I'm more inclined to favor Einstien's take that doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results is one definition of insanity.
The conservative repudiation of both the democratic process and civilized behavior displayed in their determination to ram their beliefs down everyone else's throat in spite of their being in the minority is hardly laudable. And neither is an inability to appreciate the difference between "principled resolve" and pigheaded megalomania.
I'll keep saying it until you catch-on, this country was founded on the belief that government governs with the consent of the governed. That does not mean our representatives are supposed refuse to cooperate unless we get our way. That does not mean our representatives are supposed to refuse to cooperate unless there is unanimous consent. That means that our representatives are supposed to find compromises that most everyone can live with.
Anyone who refuses to pragmatically change their position in response to the facts on the ground, instead insisting on "standing on their principles," is unqualified for government office.
Politics over principles...
So has Romney ... what's your point?
Unless you're forgetting the two sides he's taken on many issues.
... health care
... immigration
... abortion
Just pick a principle. Any principle. It's likely Romney's held it at some point or another :)
That's why I'm not sure I understand why it's OK for you when Romney plays politics but you scream and yell about Obama?
If you're going to be AGAINST politicians playing politics, be against it. It's hard to believe that you're serious though when you only complain about Obama.
It sounds much more like you just don't like Obama.
-David
dsws,
Fine.
LewDan: I'll keep saying it until you catch-on, this country was founded on the belief that government governs with the consent of the governed. That does not mean our representatives are supposed refuse to cooperate unless we get our way.
Our elected officials are there to represent We, the People. And, no, they do not have our consent to compromise on principles that matter to us. If a majority of state constituents send their representative to Washington to see that something doesn't happen, then the representative is there to see that it doesn't happen. Period.
Politics over principles...
So has Romney ... what's your point?
Why favor Obama over Romney if they are the same???
That's why I'm not sure I understand why it's OK for you when Romney plays politics but you scream and yell about Obama?
Simple.. I have acknowledged the point when ya'all have pointed out ad nasuem how the Right plays politics..
BUT...
You have always claimed (or at least intimated) that Obama is better than that..
My point is to show ya'all, once again, that Obama is NOT better than that.
That, when push comes to shove, Obama is no different than any evil, war-mongering, psychotic, terroristic Republican...
It sounds much more like you just don't like Obama.
Ya think??? :D
I don't....
My point is, YOU do... Despite all the evidence that Obama stands for practically everything that Progressives (allegedly) despise...
Michale.....
Chris1962 [20],
The founders compromised their principles to protect the slave trade until 1808 in order to get the constitution ratified. "We the people" does not mean you alone. You want to force your views on those of us who don't share them. We are perfectly willing to let you go your own way, but that's not good enough for you.
You keep screaming about "your rights but all your policies are about controlling someone else's behavior. Don't give me that "we the people" BS. You don't believe in democracy. You believe in tyranny. Your way or the highway. You're not complaining because someone is trying to stop you from doing what you want, you're complaining because you haven't yet been able to stop others from doing what they want. And you haven't been able to because We the People keep preventing you.
LewDan,
You are an excellent judge of character and of what motivates people.
Chris1962,
If a majority of state constituents send their representative to Washington to see that something doesn't happen, then the representative is there to see that it doesn't happen. Period.
You have an obstreperous view of what political leadership is all about.
LewDan: "We the people" does not mean you alone.
It means the majority of people that any given elected official represents.
You want to force your views on those of us who don't share them.
Uh, that door swings both ways. Harry's got over two dozen House bills sitting on his desk, collecting dust. Yet I don't hear the Left complaining about the Senate not cooperating with the House.
And as for "forcing views on those of us who don't share them," tell it Pelosi, Reid and Obama, who forced CrapCare on the majority of Americans who were against it. To hear that accusation come out of the Left is downright comical.
The rest of your allegations are too vague to respond to.
LD,
Once again, CB makes an excellent point..
The idea of forcing one's views, ideals and principles on others has been the driving force of the Left since 2008...
I am constrained to point out (again) that if the Left wants peace, harmony, compromise and bi-partisanship then the Left needs to clean up their own house first.
Then, and ONLY then, will they have any moral or ethical foundation to preach to others...
Michale.....
You said it, Michale. Here we have a president who's committed himself to finding ways to circumvent congress to get what he wants. Yet the Left has the nerve to suggest that "You don't believe in democracy. You believe in tyranny. Your way or the highway." Their hypocrisy is nothing short of mind-boggling.