The outgoing House Democratic majority last year gifted Members with help for their DC housing and meal expenses, later ratified by the GOP-controlled House Administration Committee.
This is an excellent article. It does point to a problem on Capitol Hill that the salaries are too low for maintaining two households. Members of Congress cannot even deduct business expenses on their taxes like any other taxpayer can. They have not had a salary increase in 12 years - and that is thanks to the political committees who will roast anyone who votes for one. It is hard to explain why $174,000 isn't enough to your constituents who all mostly have family incomes under $100,000. But, regular cost of living adjustments like the law provides for, but the Members vote down, would prevent the House from only attracting professional politicians.
Agree with you on handling salary levels and increases. It will take another strong commission that we had 20 or so years ago, back during the bad old days of $99,000 salaries and horrible honoraria rules, to get the process started.
Thank you for bringing that insider insight to us.
Of course, my inclination is to reduce the burdens on the federal government -- it does, or tries to do -- way too much. It is not their job to run society. For the most part, Congress should get out of the way.
The putative reason behind the weekly trips back home is to stay in touch with their constituents. Does that really happen? Wouldn't they need down time, like other hard working people, on their weekends? Do they really have the opportunity to gauge the sensibilities of their constituencies in such brief visits? Yet if they stay away for extended periods, they're accused of being out of touch. Term limits would address that -- true residents of the places they represent on a brief sojourn to DC. Then resume life at home. The Articles of Confederation had that right, in concept. More than a very few years away, the honorables become part of DC society and culture. Whom then do they represent?
The counter argument is that they need time to build up expertise. I disagree, going back to my opening observation above. They're not there to be experts, they're there to convey and enact the wishes of their constituents in the context of national goals and conflicting desires from other places. That's hard enough of a challenge.
But it's hard for citizens to be too sympathetic to the demands on elected officials when there are always numerous applicants (candidates) for those jobs. They all work very hard for the opportunity to carry those burdens, which suggests some considerable level of desirability; it's their choice.
As an aside, it was a hoot reading about Mr Gaetz's profligate spending. Budgeting indeed!
Thanks for this. What Members do on their trips home vary widely. Some, as I remember, just went home and visited with friends at the local country club while others had full days with speeches, constituent meetings, town halls and media events, taking only Sunday off if then. I've hosted food factory tours for dozens of Congressmen and women, in or near their districts. Most make better use of their time for the longer recesses.
I’m all for receiving fair work compensation but What am I missing? $174,000 plus up to $34,000 additional for 90 “in session” days? Teachers work 187+ days for 1/3 of that and we also live in high COL districts. I know the need to campaign is an issue but shouldn’t that be done at home, where your constituents live?
You're missing a lot. Members of Congress have to spend a lot of their own money for things that we average folks don't. Like two households. Also, as I said in the post, you get what you pay for. Are you really happy with the quality of education from our public schools? And by the way, teacher salaries are catching up to congressional paychecks, especially for those who've been in the "system" for a decade or more.
This is an excellent article. It does point to a problem on Capitol Hill that the salaries are too low for maintaining two households. Members of Congress cannot even deduct business expenses on their taxes like any other taxpayer can. They have not had a salary increase in 12 years - and that is thanks to the political committees who will roast anyone who votes for one. It is hard to explain why $174,000 isn't enough to your constituents who all mostly have family incomes under $100,000. But, regular cost of living adjustments like the law provides for, but the Members vote down, would prevent the House from only attracting professional politicians.
Agree with you on handling salary levels and increases. It will take another strong commission that we had 20 or so years ago, back during the bad old days of $99,000 salaries and horrible honoraria rules, to get the process started.
Thank you for bringing that insider insight to us.
Of course, my inclination is to reduce the burdens on the federal government -- it does, or tries to do -- way too much. It is not their job to run society. For the most part, Congress should get out of the way.
The putative reason behind the weekly trips back home is to stay in touch with their constituents. Does that really happen? Wouldn't they need down time, like other hard working people, on their weekends? Do they really have the opportunity to gauge the sensibilities of their constituencies in such brief visits? Yet if they stay away for extended periods, they're accused of being out of touch. Term limits would address that -- true residents of the places they represent on a brief sojourn to DC. Then resume life at home. The Articles of Confederation had that right, in concept. More than a very few years away, the honorables become part of DC society and culture. Whom then do they represent?
The counter argument is that they need time to build up expertise. I disagree, going back to my opening observation above. They're not there to be experts, they're there to convey and enact the wishes of their constituents in the context of national goals and conflicting desires from other places. That's hard enough of a challenge.
But it's hard for citizens to be too sympathetic to the demands on elected officials when there are always numerous applicants (candidates) for those jobs. They all work very hard for the opportunity to carry those burdens, which suggests some considerable level of desirability; it's their choice.
As an aside, it was a hoot reading about Mr Gaetz's profligate spending. Budgeting indeed!
Thanks for this. What Members do on their trips home vary widely. Some, as I remember, just went home and visited with friends at the local country club while others had full days with speeches, constituent meetings, town halls and media events, taking only Sunday off if then. I've hosted food factory tours for dozens of Congressmen and women, in or near their districts. Most make better use of their time for the longer recesses.
I’m all for receiving fair work compensation but What am I missing? $174,000 plus up to $34,000 additional for 90 “in session” days? Teachers work 187+ days for 1/3 of that and we also live in high COL districts. I know the need to campaign is an issue but shouldn’t that be done at home, where your constituents live?
You're missing a lot. Members of Congress have to spend a lot of their own money for things that we average folks don't. Like two households. Also, as I said in the post, you get what you pay for. Are you really happy with the quality of education from our public schools? And by the way, teacher salaries are catching up to congressional paychecks, especially for those who've been in the "system" for a decade or more.