Ok, Kids, Time to Stop the Sleepovers (You’re Getting to the Age Where It’s Creepy)

The watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington yesterday sent a letter to the Office of Congressional Ethics demanding an investigation into members sleeping in their offices. By CREW’s estimation at least 32 members — and as much as a fifth of the freshman class — save on rent and sleep on cots, air mattresses or couches in their federal offices whilst in DC.

Sure, most congressmen earn more than $100,000 a year, so you’d think they’d be able to afford at least a studio in Washington. But from that money they must provide for their families, pay for weekly flights home and maintain their residences in their districts. In other words, if you’re not already wealthy and live far from the East Coast, this could get expensive very quickly. Not to mention that it’s the cool, in thing to be seen as little invested as possible in Washington DC. So, an increasing number of members are proudly living like backpackers, showering at the gym and sustaining themselves on mini-fridges and hotpots in their offices.

Enter CREW, who feel that these frugal lawmakers are in violation of House rules.

The House Ethics Manual states “official resources of the House must, as a general rule, be used for the performance of the official business of the House.” This prohibition is derived from regulations of the House Administration Committee, contained in the Member’s Handbook, providing official resources may be used to pay “[o]nly expenses the primary purpose of which are official and representational. The Member Representational Allowance may only be used for official and representation expenses, it may not be used for personal expenses.”

I think members could make a decent case that staying out of bankruptcy, since they’re barred from holding other jobs, is probably in the best interests of the office – or at least to their chances of reelection to that office. But is that related to the “official and representational” responsibilities of the office? Debatable.

CREW makes a second point: that members are in violation of the tax code because their government-given parking spots are considered a taxable income – why, then, wouldn’t lodging? Of course, House buildings aren’t zoned as residences, but Congress also isn’t subject to the laws it passes, so there’s not much that can be done in terms of zoning or Occupational Safety and Health Administration transgressions. But, members are subject to the tax code making the point an interesting one in terms of interpretation of the law.

CREW also accuses the pajama bandits of breaking House Rule 23 requiring all members to conduct themselves “at all times in a manner that reflects creditably on the House.”

In is unseemly for members of Congress to sleep in House offices, thereby increasing the work of housekeeping staff and interfering with necessary maintenance and construction. It is also distasteful for members who sleep in their offices to wander the halls in sweat clothes or robes in search of a shower. Such conduct undermines the decorum of the House of Representatives.

Not to mention the potentially awkward moments working late with staff while getting ready for bed. That’s when things like tickle fights happen and we know where those lead.

More on Time.com: Top Ten Political Sex Scandals

Subscribe to Jay Newton-Small on Facebook
Related Topics: Congress
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / The White House via Getty Images

    Political Picures of the Week, May 18-25

    TIME’s photo editors bring you the best pictures of the past week from the Beltway and beyond.

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    From left: AP; ABACAUSA

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

  • afguy

    That’s when things like tickle fights happen and we know where those lead.
    .
    Yeah, before you know it, “spooning” leads to “forking”.

  • centfan

    All in all a series of mental images that demand Clorox applied directly to the cerebral cortex.
    -
    Why does no one think to go the classier route… a Winnebago on blocks?

  • GivenUp

    This would be one of the reasons we should pay our elected representatives more. It should not be necessary to be independently wealthy in order to run for office. This is how we get the country run by an oligarchy.

  • americanwithabrain

    Build them a comfortable but sparse dorm. Require them to stay there. Limit their terms. Make it a chore… a JOB to be a senator or congressperson. That would run most of the bunch that’s up there now away. Most have never had a real job. Most have never run a business (other than daddy’s) before.

    The way it is now, we might as well call them princes and princesses, they’re more like royalty. Maybe if it’s a bit more like work and a bit less comfortable they’ll get something done and then go home rather than be “on the dole” possibly for life.

  • lepidusxvi

    There is a simple solution here.
    .
    Step #1: Buy/build a dorm that is free to any member of congress who wants a room.
    .
    Step #2: Cover a reasonable number of flights to and from a person’s district.
    .
    It’s supposed “the people’s house” and if you need to be rich to sustain being a member from a place further away than Virgina, then that’s a huge issue.
    .
    I wouldn’t take a job that made me fly around the world on a near weekly basis if that cost came out of my salary. Do the math, after taxes, these guys probably make about 5-6k per month.
    .
    Worst case scenario, a congressman from California could easily spend 4k a month on flights if he wanted to go home each weekend.
    .
    The system should be set up to encourage people to join congress, not make it something only an elites can afford to do.

  • allthingsinaname

    Or we could just end up with a well paid oligarchy.
    .
    I am not sure how it would pan out, but you have a point.

  • http://grapemusing.blogspot.com/ grape_crush

    …most congressmen earn more than $100,000 a year, so you’d think they’d be able to afford at least a studio in Washington.

    DC area housing is expensive, unless you live an hour or two away. I don’t have a problem with the pols sleeping in their offices. Beats them living in ‘specially’ subsidized housing.

    (and $600 a month is about half of what a one-bedroom apartment costs in DC)

  • lepidusxvi

    Fact is, a lot of these rules had to have been formalized at a time when congressmen would literally have to move to DC for most of the year. You know, the lack of airplanes in the late 1700s.
    .
    Now that modern travel allows them to keep a foot in their own district, which is a good thing, on a regular basis, maybe it’s time to update the rules to not only encourage such behavior, but ensure it.

  • square1

    One of the flaws of a republican system of government is that citizens tend to want to pay their representatives based upon their past performance, rather than based upon the importance of the office.

    What would one pay for hard-working, intelligent legislators with a lot of integrity? $300k? $500k? $1M?

    IF we paid them that much, we could attract a much higher quality of politician.

    Instead we are trapped in a vicious cycle: We pay elected officials too little. In turn, the positions become relatively less attractive to people with integrity and skill and relatively more attractive to slime balls. In turn, the voters are increasingly disappointed with the performance of their politicians. Which makes the voters oppose pay increases.

    Oh, and the crappy, corrupt politicians get bought off by crony capitalists who worsen the income discrepancy in the U.S. Which then makes it even harder to attract quality politicians from the private sector.

    Americans need to recognize that you get what you pay for. The only way out of this mess is to double the salaries and institute publicly-financed elections.

  • billiecat

    I dunno. I don’t recall my time in a dorm as the most decorous period of my life. Can you imagine the keggers? And if the dorm were coed, wooooh boy.

    That said, I don’t like the idea of House Members shuffling around the EOB in their bunny slippers, either.

    A reasonable housing expense should be allowed, one that is based on proximity to D.C> and allows for reasonable travel, but the political issues will no doubt keep the sensible thing from being done here.

  • allthingsinaname

    Let’s face it. It is the power they want, and or the future income.
    .
    The altruistic politician you want would be willing to do what to win?

  • http://grapemusing.blogspot.com/ grape_crush

    Step #1: Buy/build a dorm that is free to any member of congress who wants a room.

    Federally-subsidized housing. That would go over well.

  • allthingsinaname

    “Federally-subsidized housing. That would go over well.”
    .
    Why not? the Fedrerally-subsidized Health Care is going over without a hitch.

  • formerlyjames

    This is a curious issue. As noted by JNS, there is a coolness element, not only in not being invested in DC to the extent of having a proper bed to sleep there, but also the common hard working guy element. What the solution would be I don’t know, but tend to agree that turning federal business spaces into cheap dorms lends no dignity to government. I’m also not thrilled with the K Street House and the cult like frat rat appearance of it.

    I looked up CREW and find that they have been accused of targeting primarily Republicans in their investigations. In this case, I count 26 Republicans and 7 Democrats targeted.

  • afguy

    That’s always been the problem, allthings.
    .
    In a perverse way, the ones we’d MOST like to be in government are the ones that would be the MOST likely to tell the “mudslingers” on their side to take a hike and let the peoples voices be heard.
    .
    They would be, in today’s environment, gracious, honorable and highly-principled losers.
    .
    We’ll get integrity in our government when we start to elect people of integrity, regardless of how much money (and mud) is expended against them.
    .
    As long as that sh!t works, it’s going to continue to be used.

  • shepherdwong

    Let’s face it. It is the power they want, and or the future income.
    .
    The altruistic politician you want would be willing to do what to win?

    .
    That’s a broad and lazy brush you’re painting with. Obviously, the Progressive Caucus isn’t the Tea Party Caucus and there is a wide range of motives, some, possibly, somewhat altruistic – or, at least, civic-minded. One big problem with the electorate, especially squishy independents, is the failure to be discriminating about such things.

  • formerlyjames

    Note that most are freshman. They haven’t established the Daddy Big Buck lobby contacts yet to be able to afford elegant quarters. We know that most will. It just takes time.

  • artraveler

    “What would one pay for hard-working, intelligent legislators with a lot of integrity? $300k? $500k? $1M?”

    I don’t know but I know we wouldn’t find one in the current crew there. I don’t see much “integrity” and even less “Christian” yet they still act like the Taliban.

  • lepidusxvi

    They have federally subsidized paychecks.
    .
    And I am pretty sure government pays for those offices they’re treating like housing, so it’s not exactly a large leap. It just means they’ll all bathe more regularly.

  • afguy

    NOTE TO THE HIGH SHERIFFS: whatever it is you’ve done… I approve.
    .
    Your actions (whatever they may or may not be) have improved the quality of the discussion today immensely.

  • Ivy_B

    I remember hearing that this was not always the way and long time senators have said the loss of collegeality has cost in getting things done. I found this article that discusses those old days.

    Real legislating—the compromises and dealmaking that distinguish politics from posturing—happens only among people who know and respect each other. Family life has always been crucial to that chemistry. During Lyndon Johnson’s presidency, first lady historian Carl Anthony points out, gritty negotiations with congressional Republicans, led by Gerald Ford, were often smoothed over by Lady Bird Johnson and Betty Ford, cultivated during long years as congressional wives.

    There’s also a difference in tone. If you live across the street from your political opponent, if you know his kids, if you’ve been to dinner at his house, “it’s impossible to go up on the floor of the Senate or in the media and blast him the next day,” says Trent Lott, former Senate leader from Mississippi. If, on the other hand, you live on the road and your spouse is back home, raising the kids and running the family business by herself, bipartisan socializing might not be your first priority.

    After the Republican congressional takeover in 1994, such spouse-generated decisions to “stay home” received a political push. Incoming House Speaker Newt Gingrich, drawing distinctions between “insiders” (bad) and “outsiders” (good), actually encouraged lawmakers to keep their families at home—escaping the Beltway trumped physical togetherness in this “family values” era. Congressional travel budgets expanded accordingly, and commuting became the norm.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-01-02/why-commuting-congressmen-who-leave-their-families-home-may-create-more-gridlock/

  • Paul-no not that one

    Could they use their Franking privilege to mail themselves to and fro?

  • allthingsinaname

    You call it broad and lazy, Broad it maybe but lazy? How so? Do you think, really think, that the kind of person (Altruistic) you want in office is going to win by being, well, Altruistic?
    .
    I am hardly being lazy, I know that I have a choice to make, and a choice I will make, and it will be for the person who can best represent my view, altruistic or not.
    .
    Paying a person more is not going to stop him or her from using one liners to win the uninformed public vote, or from the constant look at the other guys faults, or from causing unfounded fears, and just plain telling lies.

  • afguy

    Paul,
    .
    I vote for Personal/Office Transporters. Let’s make “Beam me up, Scotty” a reality. That would definitely cut down on the travel costs.
    .
    I’d love to be out of the ice and snow that clobbered us this week.

  • Paul-no not that one

    It seems you aren’t taking my suggestion seriously.
    .
    I feel ya on the ice and snow, even by Minnesota standards this winter has suc..been brutal. Hope spring comes soon for you.

  • Ivy_B

    That would have the added benefit of helping the Post Office with its financial troubles.

  • afguy

    Paul,
    .
    Much worse that the ice and snow… we’ve had 2 bored teenage boys home from school all week. One did $1500 damage to the front of his suv on the way from school when they were sent home.
    .
    I’m keeping sharp objects away from the Missus, both for HER sake and for theirs..

  • Paul-no not that one

    Excellent point Ivy.
    .
    I just checked to see who pays for Franking and it is Congress its (their?) self. And they can swing that easily. Nadler doesn’t have far to go, right. (Sorry that was a cheap shot)
    .
    Sounds horrible afguy, although if the damage-so far-was limited to inanimate objects be grateful.
    .
    He says from a distance.

  • shepherdwong

    Paying a person more is not going to stop him or her from using one liners to win the uninformed public vote, or from the constant look at the other guys faults, or from causing unfounded fears, and just plain telling lies.
    .
    Neither will paying them more, in most cases, cause them to do those things. It’s about the character of the person. Lazy is not taking the time and effort to really look at the character of the individual, based upon their behavior: cheap rhetoric – or not, baseless smears – or not, fear-mongering – or not, lying – or not, (starting to see a pattern here?) or projecting one’s own cynicism on all politicians in place of doing the hard math.

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    http://www.thecapitol.net/FAQ/payandperqs.htm
    .
    Let’s start with the base salary. ” more than $100,000″ indeed. 74,000 dollars more. $174,000.
    .
    Plus:
    .
    Expense Allowances for members, kept separate from personal staff allowances, cover domestic travel, stationery, newsletters, overseas postage, telephone and telegraph service, and other expenses in Washington and in the members’ state or congressional districts.
    .
    Foreign Travel by members for the conduct of government business is financed through special allowances. These funds can come from various sources.

    Money is appropriated by Congress through the Mutual Security Act to pay travel and other expenses of congressional committees for routine and special investigations.
    Members traveling abroad are allowed to use American-owned counterpart funds. These are foreign currencies held by U.S. embassies and credited to the United States as part of various foreign assistance programs; they can be spent only in the country of origin.
    .
    Domestic Travel (to and from District/State)
    House: Included in office expenses is a minimum amount of $9,700 (2003), with additional funding based on a formula that uses the distance from Washington, DC to the farthest point in the Congressional district from Washington.
    .
    and travel can be funded by outsiders:
    .
    http://www.opensecrets.org/travel/

  • allthingsinaname

    Look Shep I believe that you and I probably have the same view of things in many respects, the difference is we talk to or, with a different audience. Am I a cynic? You bet I am. Do I have reason to be? That is for me to decide, not you.

  • afguy

    IOW… they ain’t suffering?

  • http://pewterhydra.wordpress.com pewterhydra

    Perhaps a dormitory would be good for them. They could get all the “roughing it” cred they want without making the House look silly.

  • GivenUp

    The cynic in me says we’d end up with the well paid oligarchy but we have that now so at worst we would maintain the status quo and at best open up the membership of congress to more people.

  • jgsr

    This is worth time and thought? Really?
    A totally insignificant issue should not be wasted.
    I suggest we devote the time to “discuss” office napping.
    There needs to be strict rules applying to napping….how long, who and who can’t be present during the nap time.
    Napping is a “gateway” activity that can worsen into sleep-overs.
    If napping is regulated, behavior modification classes made mandatory, these socially deviate sleep-overs can be prevented by early recognition.
    If napping violators are caught early enough, attendance in a 12-Step Nappers Anonymous program is made mandatory, the sleep-over problem will be prevented from getting completely out of control.
    To do less is simply socially irresponsible.

  • square1

    @allthings:
    .
    I’m not saying that we need altruistic politicians. Indeed, I’m saying the opposite. If you wanted altruistic politicians you wouldn’t have to pay them anything.
    .
    What I am saying is that there are basically two types of people who want elected office.
    .
    The first is what I would call “principled narcissists”. I would generally lump the late Kennedys, John Kerry, Russ Feingold, and on the GOP side Ron Paul.
    .
    These are people who have big egos and want to be regarded as at the pinnacle of society. However, they measure themselves by their actual accomplishments and take the term “public service” seriously.
    .
    If you pay them a lot of money and tell them that you will name airports and bridges after them they will deliver for you. It isn’t altruism. It is a social contract.
    .
    The other category are “political parasites.” The parasites usually have big egos too but they don’t give a damn about public service and never have. They are always out for themselves.
    .
    The parasites are always putting themselves above the public interest. It might be relatively small-potatoes graft (e.g. Rangel’s “improper use of a rent-stabilized apartment”). Or it might be screwing up an entire health care reform policy in exchange for a present (e.g. Tom Daschle) or future (e.g. Joe Lieberman) fat lobbyist check.
    .
    Or it might just be quitting your job in mid-stream to pursue more lucrative speaking opportunities (e.g. Sarah Palin).
    .
    The problem is that when you lower the salary and official compensation, it makes the position less appealing for principled narcissists but not less appealing for political parasites, because the latter are simply trying to leverage the position for more money on the side.

  • shepherdwong

    Look, I cede my own deep cynicism to no man (I’m the guy who’s been saying all along that Obama’s “bi-partisan outreach” was all Kabuki theater for Villagers and independents, remember?). Regardless, or perhaps because of that, the assignment of motive needs to be done scrupulously. I know that all professional Republicans and most “conservatives” have bad motives because their behavior is so egregious – no decent person would do what they do: take money from corporations to undermine the government of the Unites States and then lie about their own motives and the motives of their political adversaries (who happen to be generally trying to do the right thing).
    .
    That is a far cry from say, a Barbara Lee or an Al Franken, who have done nothing to suggest that their motives are questionable. They appear to be, overall, good and truthful public servants. Tell me why they deserve your blanket cynicism.

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    They can afford housing in the District. They can do the C Street dormitory thing if they really want to economize (without the corruption and the secret religious society stuff that Jeff Sharlet has been writing about in books) The sleep in the office thing is just a stunt.
    .
    (Speaking as someone who did indeed sleep in his grad school office for a couple of weeks in between apartments.)
    .
    I also find irksome the idea that earning money (with perks) in the 97th or 98th percentile as “underpaid.” The Gilded Age mega gap is one problem. But the idea that Gibbs was making some huge sacrifice–that he is really a 2 million dollar a year guy is part of a different problem.

  • Paul-no not that one

    “Domestic Travel…Included in office expenses is a minimum amount of $9,700 (2003)”
    .
    Does the (2003) mean adjusted for inflation?
    .
    I’m looking around at the cost of flights and trying to estimate how many trips back and forth that would mean.
    .
    How many trips home per year do you think is warranted?
    .
    My sillyness aside this is sort of an interesting topic.
    .
    Not that they are claiming poverty but there are real expenses and commitments that Congresspeople face.
    .
    Your Gibbs mention is certainly unassailable.

  • allthingsinaname

    Point taken Shep, but where I am in TX, and have been for 41 years I have not seen those types. You will have to forgive me if they do not come to mind.
    .
    We here in TX are at or near the bottom in Wages, Education, Health Care with no end in sight for the neglect by our elected officials. My point was and still is why pay these guys more?
    .
    Nothing changes until the public changes, and on that I am not hopeful.

  • http://maf97.wordpress.com maf97

    The partisan bent is not surprising. However, they are apparently targeting the Freshman legislators and based on the most recent election, that class would include more Repubs than Dems. The question is whether CREW is targeting all Freshmen that are sleeping under their desks or just some. Another would be, in the past, when the Freshman class has been heavy with Dems, did CREW make these same demands for investigations. I’m guessing — no way. I’d be interested in knowing if there is historical data about which party is more likely to sleep in their office. That could be quite telling.

  • allthingsinaname

    Sqaure1,
    .
    I do not wish to tell you where I work, but they keep raising the salary so they can hire individuals, it seems no one wants to or, is able to do the work. While it is nice for me as my salary goes up, it seems the quality of the worker has not.
    .
    The point is, I think, that we do not hire the right politician. We probably do not even allow them to run. There is something wrong with the process, I suspect, more than the pay.

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    “Pay for weekly flights home”
    .
    http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0E,*PL%3D%23P%20%20
    .
    Official Office Expenses Allowance Component of the MRA
    The MRA also is available to pay ordinary and necessary business expenses incurred in support
    of official and representational duties to the district from which a member has been elected. The
    official office expenses allowance component of the MRA varies for each member.

    A base allowance of $256,574 was authorized for each member in 2010.

    There are two additional factors in this component, including:
    1. a sum for travel based on the following formula: 64 times the rate per mile (see
    Table 1 below) multiplied by the mileage between Washington, DC, and the
    furthest point in a member’s district,
    16
    plus 10%. The minimum mileage amount
    is $6,200 for a member.
    The rate per mile used to calculate the 2010 allowance
    was as follows:

    Table 1. Mileage Multiplier for MRA
    Mileage Between Washington, DC, and the
    Furthest Point in a Member’s District Rate Per Mile
    Fewer than 500 miles $ .96
    500 to 749 miles .86
    750 to 999 miles .71
    1,000 to 1,749 miles .61
    1,750 to 2,249 miles .51
    2,250 to 2,499 miles .48
    2,500 to 2,999 miles .43

  • shepherdwong

    Nothing changes until the public changes, and on that I am not hopeful.
    .
    Hope is a scarce commodity these days, allthings and, based upon where you live, I’m sure that your political cynicism is well earned. What has to happen with the public, particularly swing voters, is that their eyes need to be opened about the nature of contemporary “conservatism” and professional Republicans. Publicly-financed federal campaigns and left-of-right voters learning what the corporatist right is all about are the only changes that will lead to progress. Considering the utter failure of the legacy press to recognize its own elitist rot and reform itself gives me little hope that either of those things will happen any time soon.
    .
    OTOH, if the plutocrats really convince Democrats to go along with cuts in social insurance benefits after they’ve f@cked us all with their greed-headed incompetence and given themselves a huge tax cut, things might get interesting.

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    PNNTO
    .
    The pdf has the details on the formulas. It’s at least misleading for JNS to say that the cost of weekly travel home comes out of a House member’s salary.
    .
    It may be that the allowance is insufficient for some members. But I doubt it it is generally insufficient to cover actual flight costs. And of course the ancillary part of such travel, like cars, is covered in the 250K annual business expense budget.
    .
    I am not saying that I’d object if salaries were, say, doubled. These salaries have no practical impact on the taxpayer. But these guys are not receiving compensation that makes it necessary for them to sleep in their offices.
    .

  • http://maf97.wordpress.com maf97

    Interesting. So if their spouse holds a decent paying job they stand a very real chance of being one of Obama’s super-rich and would thereby subject themselves to potentially outrageous taxation. Nice touch.

    Its also worth noting that the salaries are standard meaning senators/congressmen in high cost of living districts get the same check as those living in low cost of living districts (unless there is a COLA boost somewhere in those manuals). Also, seniority counts for nothing in terms of the posted base pays. And obviously no merit based pay either.

  • thomas790

    “Sure, most congressmen earn more than $100,000 a year”. I don’t know if this reflects ignorance or laziness. All MCs receive the same base salary of $174,000. Did the writer not even know they all receive the same minimum and it is 75% more than he referenced?

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    If I am reading the formula correctly, if there is a point in your district 1000 miles away from the Capitol, your additional travel allowance is 1.1(64*1000*.61)=$43,000

  • Paul-no not that one

    Thanks jay.
    .
    I have been perusing the tables. Sometimes it takes me time to work through/process that type of information.
    .
    This One Size Fits All (excepting allowances for distance) type of rule always raises the same red flag for me as mandatory sentencing.
    .
    Feels great. Makes no sense.

  • allthingsinaname

    Well shep if that happens we will be stuck with the battle to reinvent the wheel. That is not progress, but it may look like it when it happens and, it will end there.

  • shepherdwong

    That is not progress, but it may look like it when it happens and, it will end there.
    .
    Actually, I think that if enough people manage to figure out who’s really f@cking them in the @ss (why the oligarchs work so hard to corrupt the political press) and what to do about it, it could be just the beginning. Reinventing the democratic wheel, indeed.

  • http://adamjcopeland.com Adam J. Copeland

    I just blogged on this…..”Instead of suggesting members should refrain from sleeping in their offices, they should lobby that all members of the House and Senate may only sleep in their offices.”

    I say promote make it mandatory representatives stay in congressional dorms. Living together makes for better relationships, ideas, and partnerships.

    My blog post on the topic: http://bit.ly/f2XDih

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    ma97
    .
    There are substantial increases if you are in the leadership. More perks too–car w/driver etc.

  • swissArmyBrainBETA

    of all the possible crackdowns on lawbreaking by government officials….

  • Ivy_B

    Thanks, Jay. That was really useful and interesting.

  • http://erieangel.wordpress.com erieangel

    I’m for the dormatory idea. Get them all living under one roof. In fact, make it mandatory that first year freshmen live no place else. Do not provide housing allowances to those who elect to live “off campus” after their first year. Most are cheap enough that they would stay in the dorms.
    .
    I don’t understand the arguments to raise their salaries. Nobody in Congress is hurting. In fact most are doing fairly well, and more than half of our elected officials are millionaires.
    .
    There was a time when “public service” meant something. Public servants are supposed to be sacrificers for the common good. At least that’s how the thinking once was. Greed and cooruption has long ago invested our politics, policies and our everyday lives. And the American people have long since ceased expecting anything better from the people they elect.

  • apexmi

    Just move all those FEMA trailers that didn’t get used to DC and put them in the parking lot….

  • shepherdwong

    …in Anacostia.

  • rover27

    Amen! Today has been a much more adult and informative comment section than in many weeks. Blowhards were making the normally intelligent discussions unbearable.

    I believe they were paid trolls meant to disrupt and discourage meaningful discussion.

  • allthingsinaname

    Shep,
    after a long delay, celebrating my 63rd, I hope you are correct, I do not deny that is possibility, there could be a rebound. I hope you are correct.

  • allthingsinaname

    An interesting thread..
    Thanks

  • allthingsinaname

    in Anacostia.
    I’ll have to study that

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    I don’t know what happened yesterday, but, while up to my eyeballs in work, I wanted to check in to see how things were going and couldn’t log in until last night.
    .
    If they were forcing out paid trolls – as they may well might have been paid trolls, they may have accidentally blocked me out on a day when I, at most, could have made one or two comments before 7:00 at night.
    .
    When briefly checking in last night, I was very impressed with the level of discussion.

  • http://2thirdsrocks.wordpress.com 2thirdsrocks

    Oh boy that’s funny! The high sheriffs ain’t done sh!t. Paid trolls, that’s hilarious too! I don’t know what the rest of my conservative “troll” bretheren have been doing, but it’s probably the same thing I’ve been doing, sitting back watching the great liberal minds as they fondle and slobber and rub each other’s genitalia, intellectually discussing a non subject. You all prove daily what we’ve always known, that this is an ultra liberal rag blog, and the only true way to advance the liberal agenda is to silence any opinion that doesn’t mesh with loony left’s idea of how life should be. That’s pretty much the dream of the current regime, but thanks to true conservatives and the Tea party (the overwhelming majority of America by the way) it ain’t gonna happen. Dream on!

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    I remember when I was in college and read in some newspaper or, possibly, in class about how expensive it was to be a member of congress having a second home and back then, when I lived in dorms ( and loved college life – dorms are the best places to both make new friends and to meet girls always your own age and always in college) and thought of this idea.

    Imagine two rooms with one bathroom for each member of congress ( one room for congressperson and spouse and one room for children of members of congress when they want to visit Mom/Dad at work)

    Downstairs three or four living room like rooms, a basement gym with a pool and a massive cafeteria open from 5:00 in the morning until 1:00 in the morning.

    Buses shuttling back and forth between the Capital building and the dorms every 4 minuets when congress is in cession.

    So, food expenses for members of congress: $0 (and far cheaper than if from restaurants when bought for 535 people plus spouses and children). Hosing, gym and car expenses: $0 and, also far cheaper than paying for each on independently.

    Since this would make the dorms the ultimate deal making place in the cafeteria or the gym meaning that wealthy members of congress would, if they wish to be effective would chose the dorms over posh apartments and luxury cars.

    Problems: security would cost a fortune since this would be a terrorists/assassin’s paradise (shoot 50 bullets hit 50 very important people – or at least people who think they are very important) and, secondly what to do about those Republicans who insist upon using hot plates in their room despite the fire hazard ?

    Would the majority and minority leaders and whips have to serve as Resident Advisers writing up people for playing their music too loudly?

  • mikeijames

    i’m sorry, but if their staffers can afford to live in the d.c. metro area and the students that make up the intern base can afford to live in the d.c. metro area, these congressman can afford to live in the d.c. metro area. if housing in the d.c. metro area TRULY posed a problem for people who make that much money, the entire capitol would not function as most people who work in and around washington make less and do just fine.

  • russpoter

    UTTER RIDICULOUS

    A far-left group run by STEAL-O-CRATS criticize a bunch of Republicans. Wow! Stop the presses! Hold Page 1!

    What a load of BS.

blog comments powered by Disqus