Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WTOP)   New report shows that Congress actually has an incredibly strong work ethic, is just misunderstood   (wtop.com) divider line 122
    More: Unlikely, congresses, Society for Human Resource Management  
•       •       •

4776 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Mar 2013 at 11:43 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



122 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-12 10:23:38 AM  
If you mean a strong work ethic in campaign fundraising, yeah, I'd say probably so.
 
2013-03-12 10:27:54 AM  

basemetal: If you mean a strong work ethic in campaign fundraising, yeah, I'd say probably so.


I would've said "grifting" myself, but six of one...
 
2013-03-12 10:29:58 AM  
Can't get article to load, so I'm assuming this report was commissioned by Congress.
 
2013-03-12 11:18:03 AM  

basemetal: If you mean a strong work ethic in campaign fundraising, yeah, I'd say probably so.


All those dinners are hard work...
 
2013-03-12 11:18:34 AM  
The article would mean something if they defined what "work" was...like golfing with a contributor, going out to dinner, napping on the plane, etc.
 
2013-03-12 11:23:45 AM  
So do they have timecards for this work? How do we know their friends are stamping them in?
 
2013-03-12 11:34:20 AM  
The author

Brad Fitch
President & CEO

Bradford Fitch has spent 25 years in Washington as a journalist, congressional aide, consultant, college instructor, Internet entrepreneur, and writer/researcher.

Fitch began his career as a radio and television reporter in the 1980s. He began working on Capitol Hill in 1988 where he served for 13 years. He worked in a variety of positions for four Members of Congress, including: press secretary, campaign manager, legislative director, and chief of staff.

Fitch left Congress in 2001 to work for the Congressional Management Foundation. As Deputy Director of CMF, he served as a management consultant for Members of Congress, offering confidential guidance, conducting staff training programs, and writing publications on enhancing the performance of individual congressional offices and the institution. He served as editor of Setting Course: A Congressional Management Guide for the 108th Congress and 109th Congress editions. In 2005 Fitch managed CMF's Communicating with Congress project, and co-authored the report, How Capitol Hill is Coping with the Surge in Citizen Advocacy. He left CMF in 2006 to form a new company, Knowlegis, in affiliation with Capitol Advantage. Knowlegis is now a part of CQ-Roll Call Group, where Fitch served as a Vice President until 2010 when he returned to CMF.

Fitch is also the author of Citizen's Handbook to Influencing Elected Officials (TheCapitol.Net, 2010); Media Relations Handbook for Agencies, Associations, Nonprofits and Congress (TheCapitol.Net, 2004); "Best Practices in Online Advocacy for Associations, Nonprofits, and Corporations," a chapter in Routledge Handbook of Political Management (Routledge, 2008); and articles on communications and advocacy. He has taught journalism and public communications at American University in Washington, D.C, where he served an adjunct Associate Professor of Communications. He received his B.A. degree in Political Science from Johns Hopkins University and his M.A. degree in Journalism and Public Affairs from American University.
 
2013-03-12 11:44:56 AM  

wxboy: Can't get article to load, so I'm assuming this report was commissioned by Congress.


*snerk*
 
2013-03-12 11:47:08 AM  
They work very hard for corporations and billionaires.
 
2013-03-12 11:47:54 AM  
The House was in session for 153 days in 2012. Yeah, they're totally busting their asses.
 
2013-03-12 11:48:11 AM  

basemetal: If you mean a strong work ethic in campaign fundraising, yeah, I'd say probably so.

 
2013-03-12 11:48:13 AM  
Congress & Senate = lazy bunch of bought-off turds who are severly underworked and very overpaid.
 
2013-03-12 11:49:06 AM  
They work really hard for the billionaire who will give them jobs once they quit public "service".
 
2013-03-12 11:49:30 AM  
Isn't that what you say right before you get fired?
 
2013-03-12 11:49:40 AM  

Cybernetic: The House was in session for 153 days in 2012. Yeah, they're totally busting their asses.


Them's schoolteacher hours.
 
2013-03-12 11:50:58 AM  
LOL subby!!
 
2013-03-12 11:52:17 AM  
And how much of that time is spent contemplating how their work could better align with the CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES this great nation was founded upon? These lousy two bit hucksters nowadays don't even stop to consider how by working they are inherently encouraging the godless communist islamofacist machine that the government has become. If these congressmen really cared about this country they would stop working immediately and refuse to further the political agenda of this usurper's administration. If the dumbocrats, RINOs and spineless jellyfish inderpendents in congress really wanted to work toward rebuilding the country they would stop working to rebuild the country.
 
2013-03-12 11:52:38 AM  
Congress is a soul whose intentions are good.
 
2013-03-12 11:53:47 AM  
What a Congressman working might look like

pbs.twimg.com
 
2013-03-12 11:53:49 AM  
Let's hypothetically assume that the study - which was funded and performed by the Congressional Management Foundation, so there's no possibility of bias there at all - is accurate, and they really do work upwards of 70 hours a week.

I could put in 70 hours a week at my job as well.

That doesn't mean that I'm effectively performing my job, or in fact actually accomplishing anything worthwhile.

So even if we assume that they really are working 70+ hours a week, the product of that work (or lack thereof, as the case may be) indicates that they are not working effectively.
 
2013-03-12 11:53:57 AM  

basemetal: If you mean a strong work ethic in campaign fundraising, yeah, I'd say probably so.


Let's not leave out serving the interests of the obscenely wealthy and their corporations. They are also quite keen on turning our democracy into an authoritarian police state.

On those issues, they are completely indefatigable.

Hell, we just made the "temporary" Bush tax cuts permanent instead of finally allowing them to expire. Now, only days later, they are seeking to cut Social Security, despite the fact that it is the nation's one self funded program and has trillions of dollars worth of surplus.
 
2013-03-12 11:54:34 AM  
"Members of Congress have a pretty strong work ethic. They spend about 70 hours a week when in Washington working, and when they are back home, about 59 hours a week," says Brad Fitch, president and chief executive officer of the Congressional Management Foundation."


...and if you believe this shiat, I got a bridge you might be interested in too.
 
2013-03-12 11:54:41 AM  

Cybernetic: The House was in session for 153 days in 2012. Yeah, they're totally busting their asses.


I read somewhere on here that there were 35 votes to repeal Obamacare (or more) in 2012. If true, that's one vote every 4.3 days of session. Basically, once a workweek.
 
2013-03-12 11:56:16 AM  

LordOfThePings: What a Congressman working might look like

[pbs.twimg.com image 320x489]


chuckslowe.com

I'll raise that one........
 
2013-03-12 11:57:52 AM  
FTA:
They spend about 70 hours a week when in Washington working, and when they are back home, about 59 hours a week...

They put in all that time and still can't get sh*t accomplished?!!
 
2013-03-12 11:58:17 AM  
Has anyone called it yet? Checks page- no....SHENANIGANS
 
2013-03-12 11:58:58 AM  
I work 70 hours a week too.  Where's my pork barrel?
 
2013-03-12 11:59:46 AM  

Bonkthat_Again: The article would mean something if they defined what "work" was...like golfing with a contributor, going out to dinner, napping on the plane, etc.


Napping on the plane.

Thanks, that was hilarious.
 
2013-03-12 12:01:34 PM  
I am surprised this wasn't a FOX news link!
 
2013-03-12 12:01:43 PM  
FTA: Of the 194 members of the U.S. House of Representatives randomly selected to participate in the 2011 survey, 25 responded.

Well, we know the work ethics of about 0.5% of Congress. And I am sure that nobody that actually responded claimed that they were slackers.
So I would take 10-15% off the numbers provided and that might actually be a little more accurate.
 
2013-03-12 12:02:24 PM  

BullBearMS: Let's not leave out serving the interests of the obscenely wealthy and their corporations. They are also quite keen on turning our democracy republic into an authoritarian police state.


FTFY
 
2013-03-12 12:02:24 PM  

basemetal: If you mean a strong work ethic in campaign fundraising, yeah, I'd say probably so.


Done in one.
//Congress, the best govt money can buy
 
2013-03-12 12:03:15 PM  

Bschott007: I am surprised this wasn't a FOX news link!


In order for it to be a Faux News link, it would have indicated that the Republican contingent spends 80 hours a week on the wall defending the country against Muslim Mexican terrorists, while the Democratic legislators were secretly selling us to Islamic Communists hellbent on taking our guns and making us all gay.
 
2013-03-12 12:03:38 PM  

Citrate1007: They work very hard for corporations and billionaires.


They like to be referred to as constituents.
 
2013-03-12 12:05:50 PM  

SDRR: Citrate1007: They work very hard for corporations and billionaires.

They like to be referred to as constituents.


"Small businesses."
 
2013-03-12 12:08:02 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: LordOfThePings: What a Congressman working might look like

[pbs.twimg.com image 320x489]

[chuckslowe.com image 400x225]

I'll raise that one........


i45.tinypic.com
 
2013-03-12 12:08:36 PM  

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: They work really hard for the billionaire who will give them jobs once they quit public "service".


Already on the payroll...
 
2013-03-12 12:10:00 PM  
Let's truly analyze


Here's how members of Congress spend their time while in D.C.:

- 35 percent on "Legislative/Policy Work" - Banging a hooker or pushing through bills for cash
- 17 percent on "Constituent Services Work" - Banging the wife/daughter/son of a donor
- 17 percent on "Political/Campaign Work" - Raising money and getting drunk
- 9 percent on "Press/Media Relations" - Getting drunk on the public dime
- 9 percent with "Family/Friends" - Getting drunk at dinner with "relatives"
- 7 percent on "Administrative/Managerial Work" - Banging an intern
- 6 percent on "Personal Time" - Getting drunk at the private trough
 
2013-03-12 12:10:53 PM  
For most of these folks, 'Congressman' is not a job it's a life style. Doing real legislative work probably accounts for 20% of their reported 'working' hours
 
2013-03-12 12:12:33 PM  
Me too, Congress.  Me too.
 
2013-03-12 12:13:12 PM  
There's a difference between having ethics and having a work ethic, subby.

/Hitler had a good work ethic too
//Godwinned!
 
2013-03-12 12:13:29 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: "Members of Congress have a pretty strong work ethic. They spend about 70 hours a week when in Washington working, and when they are back home, about 59 hours a week," says Brad Fitch, president and chief executive officer of the Congressional Management Foundation."


...and if you believe this shiat, I got a bridge you might be interested in too.


No you don't, because Congress won't fund infrastructure.
 
2013-03-12 12:15:18 PM  
i1.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-03-12 12:15:58 PM  

SploogeTime: Congress & Senate = lazy bunch of bought-off turds who are severly underworked and very overpaid.


And this is where I bring up my argument about how to solve all of the problems in government.
Take away the salaries.

If the polititians really cared so much about the job they were doing, they wouldn't need to get paid 6 figures a year.  This is especially true since every last one of them are millionaires to begin with.

Take away the salaries, and all you would have left are people who actually CARE, and would actually DO a good job.  And it wouldn't take 5 years to get a single piece of legislation passed.  Well, except those that give them a pay raise.  Those seem to pass with surpising speed and efficiency.  (Obviously, that wouldn't be a problem anymore either.)
 
2013-03-12 12:16:47 PM  
All velocity, no vector.  Doesn't equal "work".

I would rather say they "Don't Work" very very hard.
 
2013-03-12 12:18:38 PM  
That 17% they spend on political and campaign work and the 9% on media and press relations is not work that they do for us, it is work that they do for themselves and, as such, this time should be subtracted from that 70 hour a week number.
 
2013-03-12 12:20:42 PM  
Yeah, I could put in 70 hours a week at my job too if they'd let me. Once I finished my work I'd spend my time on facebook or even here. 1/4 of my time at work NOW is spent killing time since they don't give me enough to do, so while I say I put in 40 hours a week, I mean I get PAID for 40 hours a week. That doesn't reflect at all the work I actually do.

Pointless article is pointless.
 
2013-03-12 12:22:27 PM  
 

Cybernetic: The House was in session for 153 days in 2012. Yeah, they're totally busting their asses.


House sessions are for presenting and arguing bills.  A lot of work has to be done before that stage in the game.

Congress isn't broken because congressmen are lazy.  Nothing is happening because they won't compromise with each other.  And until the electorate wants something else, that is the way it will be.
 
2013-03-12 12:23:09 PM  

durbnpoisn: Take away the salaries, and all you would have left are people who actually CARE

are either rich enough to be able to work 2 or 6 years without a paycheck, or have been bribed enough to be able to afford it.

// next time, think one step beyond what sounds like a good idea
// think of what you're incentivizing with that plan, and what the unintended consequences might be
// that goes for the rest of you slackers as well
 
2013-03-12 12:24:43 PM  

haterade: Has anyone called it yet? Checks page- no....SHENANIGANS


Exactly.
 
2013-03-12 12:26:32 PM  
They do work ridiculous hours on the floor and behind the scenes. I don't doubt that.

The problem is that they're devoting all that time to making sure nothing of value gets done.

/we have the government we deserve
 
2013-03-12 12:26:58 PM  

Bareefer Obonghit: And how much of that time is spent contemplating how their work could better align with the CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES this great nation was founded upon? These lousy two bit hucksters nowadays don't even stop to consider how by working they are inherently encouraging the godless communist islamofacist machine that the government has become. If these congressmen really cared about this country they would stop working immediately and refuse to further the political agenda of this usurper's administration. If the dumbocrats, RINOs and spineless jellyfish inderpendents in congress really wanted to work toward rebuilding the country they would stop working to rebuild the country.

thegeekydream.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-03-12 12:27:26 PM  
I had a higher opinion of them before.  This is what they accomplish for 70 hours a week?
 
2013-03-12 12:28:08 PM  

Dr Dreidel: durbnpoisn: Take away the salaries, and all you would have left are people who actually CARE are either rich enough to be able to work 2 or 6 years without a paycheck, or have been bribed enough to be able to afford it.

// next time, think one step beyond what sounds like a good idea
// think of what you're incentivizing with that plan, and what the unintended consequences might be
// that goes for the rest of you slackers as well


I was thinking more, pay them like a government servant like they should be. A comfortable 50K per year or something. You don't get rid of the pay ENTIRELY, just stop the overinflation of the salaries when equated to how much work they actually do. Maybe pay them a stipend for part of the year when they're in office- like a deployment salary. Then pay them minimum otherwise.
 
2013-03-12 12:29:24 PM  
i15.photobucket.com
What someone who is misunderstood might look like.
 
2013-03-12 12:30:50 PM  
I'm sure they're working quite hard to undermine our president and prevent anything meaningful from happening. It takes a good amount of effort to do such inane things as try to repeal the ACA 33 time and propose preposterous budgets and resolutions they know have zero chance of passing.

/could be worse
//they could be working hard and passing terrible things, like the Alabama Legislature..
 
2013-03-12 12:31:33 PM  
Weren't there something like 250-300 anti-abortion bills last year? That's technically working, right?
 
2013-03-12 12:31:34 PM  
Of course they have a strong work ethic. Those hands aren't going to shake themselves, you know.
 
2013-03-12 12:31:38 PM  

durbnpoisn: If the polititians really cared so much about the job they were doing, they wouldn't need to get paid 6 figures a year. This is especially true since every last one of them are millionaires to begin with.


That would get rid of the few who aren't.
 
2013-03-12 12:37:31 PM  
NO!
70 hours a week of sedition sprinkled with brief periods of treason is not farking "working".
 
2013-03-12 12:38:58 PM  
FTFA: 2011 survey

i.imgur.com

Am I the only one who thinks someone shouldn't be able to make a 'career' out of 'politics'?
 
2013-03-12 12:39:11 PM  
farm1.static.flickr.com
 
2013-03-12 12:39:44 PM  
35 percent on "Legislative/Policy Work"17 percent on "Constituent Services Work"17 percent on "Political/Campaign Work"9 percent on "Press/Media Relations"9 percent with "Family/Friends"7 percent on "Administrative/Managerial Work"6 percent on "Personal Time" I'd count "Constituent Services Work", "Political/Campaign Work" and "Press/Media Relations" as "Getting Re-elected", so they spend 43% of their time getting re-elected. That's more time than they spend on "Legislative/Policy Work", which is what most people think of as their job.
 
2013-03-12 12:40:25 PM  
No one ever said they didn't work hard, the question is whether any of it is useful.
 
2013-03-12 12:41:30 PM  
Crap, the formatting got messed up on that. I'm too busy trying to get re-elected to redo it.
 
2013-03-12 12:42:14 PM  

Gleeman: Am I the only one who thinks someone shouldn't be able to make a 'career' out of 'politics'?


No, no you are not. The founding fathers envisioned our representatives coming from among the population at large, serving one or two terms, and then going back to their farm.
 
2013-03-12 12:44:30 PM  

whyRpeoplesostupid: The author

Brad Fitch
President & CEO

Bradford Fitch has spent 25 years in Washington as a journalist, congressional aide, consultant, college instructor, Internet entrepreneur, and writer/researcher.

Fitch began his career as a radio and television reporter in the 1980s. He began working on Capitol Hill in 1988 where he served for 13 years. He worked in a variety of positions for four Members of Congress, including: press secretary, campaign manager, legislative director, and chief of staff.

Fitch left Congress in 2001 to work for the Congressional Management Foundation. As Deputy Director of CMF, he served as a management consultant for Members of Congress, offering confidential guidance, conducting staff training programs, and writing publications on enhancing the performance of individual congressional offices and the institution. He served as editor of Setting Course: A Congressional Management Guide for the 108th Congress and 109th Congress editions. In 2005 Fitch managed CMF's Communicating with Congress project, and co-authored the report, How Capitol Hill is Coping with the Surge in Citizen Advocacy. He left CMF in 2006 to form a new company, Knowlegis, in affiliation with Capitol Advantage. Knowlegis is now a part of CQ-Roll Call Group, where Fitch served as a Vice President until 2010 when he returned to CMF.

Fitch is also the author of Citizen's Handbook to Influencing Elected Officials (TheCapitol.Net, 2010); Media Relations Handbook for Agencies, Associations, Nonprofits and Congress (TheCapitol.Net, 2004); "Best Practices in Online Advocacy for Associations, Nonprofits, and Corporations," a chapter in Routledge Handbook of Political Management (Routledge, 2008); and articles on communications and advocacy. He has taught journalism and public communications at American University in Washington, D.C, where he served an adjunct Associate Professor of Communications. He received his B.A. degree in Political Science from Johns Hopkins University and h ...


Motherfarker can't hold a job.
 
2013-03-12 12:44:49 PM  

Gleeman: FTFA: 2011 survey

[i.imgur.com image 300x562]

Am I the only one who thinks someone shouldn't be able to make a 'career' out of 'politics'?


I really really wish the founding fathers had been smart enough to include "6 terms House, 2 terms Senate" as a limit in the Constitution.  But they didn't envision career politicians like Strom Thrumond.
 
2013-03-12 12:50:47 PM  

kiwimoogle84: Dr Dreidel: durbnpoisn: Take away the salaries, and all you would have left are people who actually CARE are either rich enough to be able to work 2 or 6 years without a paycheck, or have been bribed enough to be able to afford it.

// next time, think one step beyond what sounds like a good idea
// think of what you're incentivizing with that plan, and what the unintended consequences might be
// that goes for the rest of you slackers as well

I was thinking more, pay them like a government servant like they should be. A comfortable 50K per year or something. You don't get rid of the pay ENTIRELY, just stop the overinflation of the salaries when equated to how much work they actually do. Maybe pay them a stipend for part of the year when they're in office- like a deployment salary. Then pay them minimum otherwise.


Same problem.

If the US Treasury pays them $50k (which is less than some bribes they've taken), they'll sell their services to someone who will pay more. The more we pay them, the less likely they are to want or need a bribe. I'm largely OK with legislators' salaries as they are, though - I'd like for them to be tied to minimum wage or the poverty line or the U3/U6; something so that they feel the pain when we do.

Scalia made this argument about SCOTUS pay a few years back - pay them more, and you'll attract better talent. The difference there is that the lack of worrying about your future, coupled with the status being on SCOTUS gets you is worth far more than their $200k salary.
 
2013-03-12 12:54:56 PM  

Dr Dreidel: kiwimoogle84: Dr Dreidel: durbnpoisn: Take away the salaries, and all you would have left are people who actually CARE are either rich enough to be able to work 2 or 6 years without a paycheck, or have been bribed enough to be able to afford it.

// next time, think one step beyond what sounds like a good idea
// think of what you're incentivizing with that plan, and what the unintended consequences might be
// that goes for the rest of you slackers as well

I was thinking more, pay them like a government servant like they should be. A comfortable 50K per year or something. You don't get rid of the pay ENTIRELY, just stop the overinflation of the salaries when equated to how much work they actually do. Maybe pay them a stipend for part of the year when they're in office- like a deployment salary. Then pay them minimum otherwise.

Same problem.

If the US Treasury pays them $50k (which is less than some bribes they've taken), they'll sell their services to someone who will pay more. The more we pay them, the less likely they are to want or need a bribe. I'm largely OK with legislators' salaries as they are, though - I'd like for them to be tied to minimum wage or the poverty line or the U3/U6; something so that they feel the pain when we do.

Scalia made this argument about SCOTUS pay a few years back - pay them more, and you'll attract better talent. The difference there is that the lack of worrying about your future, coupled with the status being on SCOTUS gets you is worth far more than their $200k salary.


Yep. The fact that they can vote themselves raises and exemptions from OUR laws is what leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. I recall reading that their kids don't have to pay back federal student loans, and that they won't be subject to Obamacare. They really DO need to feel the pain when we do. They can't possibly understand the impact of some of the crap they pull unless they have to spend a month deciding which bills to pay late and how to live on exactly $37 for groceries for two people for two weeks.
 
2013-03-12 12:55:26 PM  
Hilarious.  Based on a sample of 25 out of nearly 200 invited to participate. The rest I assume were just too lazy to reply.
 
2013-03-12 12:55:49 PM  

xaratherus: Let's hypothetically assume that the study - which was funded and performed by the Congressional Management Foundation, so there's no possibility of bias there at all - is accurate, and they really do work upwards of 70 hours a week.

I could put in 70 hours a week at my job as well.

That doesn't mean that I'm effectively performing my job, or in fact actually accomplishing anything worthwhile.

So even if we assume that they really are working 70+ hours a week, the product of that work (or lack thereof, as the case may be) indicates that they are not working effectively.


This is basically what I came here to say. I don't give a fat flying fark how hard you say you work or how many hours you put in sexually harassing your interns. Show me some farking results, or show yourself to the door. Try walking in to your boss's office and saying "Hey boss, I didn't get a goddamn thing accomplished last month, but I worked really hard at not getting shiat done!" and see how fast your ass is standing in the unemployment line. Then again, congress has a lower approval rating than that new drug-resistant super-gonorrhea that's going around, but we keep on  re-electing the farkers, so I guess we're just really shiatty bosses.
 
2013-03-12 12:57:15 PM  
I wonder which line item in their budget reflects this little PR stunt.
 
2013-03-12 12:59:46 PM  
So, out of 435 House members, they surveyed 194, or less than half, out of whom only 25 responded.  All the conclusions they're drawing are based on relatively vague questions and are based on the voluntary responses of under 6 percent of the House membership?

Yeah, that should yield unshakable results.  Bullshiat survey is bullshiat.
 
2013-03-12 01:00:47 PM  

Prince George: Hilarious.  Based on a sample of 25 out of nearly 200 invited to participate. The rest I assume were just too lazy to reply.


That, and if you were asked "How hard do you work?" I highly doubt, unless you were Peter GIbbons POST hypnosis, you'd freely admit to slacking. Everyone and their mother is going to sing their own praises and inflate what they actually do.
 
2013-03-12 01:01:21 PM  
*sniff*  *sniff*

Yep....Smells like bullshiat to me too.
 
2013-03-12 01:02:21 PM  
guillotine.jpg
 
2013-03-12 01:04:01 PM  
I guess if you call babbling and talking nonsense non stop for literally hours on end like a crazy person 'work' I guess you be right.
 
2013-03-12 01:06:44 PM  
Isn't family friends time part of personal time? It should be.
 
2013-03-12 01:09:19 PM  

mod3072: xaratherus: Let's hypothetically assume that the study - which was funded and performed by the Congressional Management Foundation, so there's no possibility of bias there at all - is accurate, and they really do work upwards of 70 hours a week.

I could put in 70 hours a week at my job as well.

That doesn't mean that I'm effectively performing my job, or in fact actually accomplishing anything worthwhile.

So even if we assume that they really are working 70+ hours a week, the product of that work (or lack thereof, as the case may be) indicates that they are not working effectively.

This is basically what I came here to say. I don't give a fat flying fark how hard you say you work or how many hours you put in sexually harassing your interns. Show me some farking results, or show yourself to the door. Try walking in to your boss's office and saying "Hey boss, I didn't get a goddamn thing accomplished last month, but I worked really hard at not getting shiat done!" and see how fast your ass is standing in the unemployment line. Then again, congress has a lower approval rating than that new drug-resistant super-gonorrhea that's going around, but we keep on  re-electing the farkers, so I guess we're just really shiatty bosses.


Who do you suggest we elect?

We are stuck in a "democracy" that is totally broken.  We don't get to choose who we vote for.  People who are in control already simply prop someone up and say, "This is the person that represents our party."  There are only 2 of them in any real position to get elected.  So, you can either vote for one of them, or one of the gazillion independants who stand no chance of getting elected (thus the old adage of "choosing the lesser of 2 evils" or "wasting your vote").

If anyone has any means of fixing this short of outright revolution, I'm all ears.  Otherwise this entire conversation is nothing more than a huge, scentless, fart in the wind.
 
2013-03-12 01:09:50 PM  
According to the actual report the results are self-reported opinions collected from 6% of the house. Strong data!
 
2013-03-12 01:09:57 PM  
COMPLETE BULLSHIAT - and I can back that up.

Want to know how obvious it is that research is nothing more than a commissioned PR peice? It never mentions fundraising in their daily breakdown.

You know, the activity that our congresspeople spend at least half - perhaps MORE - of their time doing. Much of the time that so called "report" says is work is actually probably fundraising. The Sunlight Foundation estimates it might be as high as 70% of a congressperson's time. However much it is, it's clearly at least around half of their time - and it's too much time.

So how could this "report" from a lobbyist purport to break down a congressperson's day.... and yet leave out the single biggest thing they do each day? Easy... it's a LIE - at least one of omission if not commission. It's intentionally misleading to continue to try and obfuscate how completely our legislature has been bought out from under us - by the very same people putting out this so-called piece of "research".

We DO NOT vote for lawmakers... we vote for partisan fundraisers. They do more work fundraising then lawmaking, so continuing to call them lawmakers is simply misleading.
 
2013-03-12 01:10:02 PM  

honk: So, out of 435 House members, they surveyed 194, or less than half, out of whom only 25 responded.  All the conclusions they're drawing are based on relatively vague questions and are based on the voluntary responses of under 6 percent of the House membership?

Yeah, that should yield unshakable results.  Bullshiat survey is bullshiat.


Also, that 70 hours per week is actually the SUM of the hours worked by ALL 25 RESPONDENTS.
 
2013-03-12 01:14:45 PM  

kiwimoogle84: The fact that they can vote themselves raises and exemptions from OUR laws is what leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.


But they can't - any change in pay must be separated from the vote by an election (the 27th Amendment). So they can vote a pay raise for Congress, but they have no idea if they'll get to benefit from it (and it might go to some homosexual socialist or fascist bible-beater). Short of having national referenda every time they want to increase Congress' pay, how do you propose to do it? (As a jumping-off point, I think we should keep the rules we have, only give control of salaries to the other chamber - Senate sets House pay and vice-versa. There's at least a check and a balance there.)

Their kids aren't subject to Obamacare is one I hadn't heard. Is it because their kids (until age 27) are covered by their Congressional parent's plan? What's the deal there? I also hadn't heard about student loans - is that a sweetheart deal given to them by a private company or a matter of law?

// Congresspeople won't know how to live on $35/week for the simple reason that they make $150+k/year in office
// the time to make sure they know about that hardship is during the campaign - vote for the scrapper from the wrong side of the tracks in the primaries, and you'll have decent candidates in the general, and hopefully won't be saddled with a self-promoting prick in the seat
// they'll still be a self-promoter (they're in Congress, after all), but you can't expect that some out-of-touch elitist elected to Congress suddenly "gets it"
 
2013-03-12 01:16:20 PM  

Cybernetic: The House was in session for 153 days in 2012. Yeah, they're totally busting their asses.


I could be an incredibly busy congresscritter even if I only 'worked' 153 days.  While it's only 64% of the 'Standard' work year of 240(2 weeks vacation, federal holidays), I'd quickly fill the 'empty' 87 days with:

Campaigning for election/re-election, reading and writing legislation(assuming I'm actually DOING my job), reading letters from my voters, answering the occasional one.  Giving out orders to draft responses, proofing said responses('the buck stops here'), etc...

Then there's the whole 'schmoozing with other critters to try to get them to vote on my pet legislation'.  I can easily see it getting to the point that I do 'working meals' most of the time.  Much of a critter's job is actually social - thus a business lunch actually works pretty well.
 
2013-03-12 01:19:39 PM  

Bareefer Obonghit: And how much of that time is spent contemplating how their work could better align with the CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES this great nation was founded upon? These lousy two bit hucksters nowadays don't even stop to consider how by working they are inherently encouraging the godless communist islamofacist machine that the government has become. If these congressmen really cared about this country they would stop working immediately and refuse to further the political agenda of this usurper's administration. If the dumbocrats, RINOs and spineless jellyfish inderpendents in congress really wanted to work toward rebuilding the country they would stop working to rebuild the country.


25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-03-12 01:20:54 PM  

Thats No Moose: There's a difference between having ethics and having a work ethic, subby.


Our congress has neither.
 
2013-03-12 01:23:17 PM  
This study brought to you by

Congress

"Congress. When it just has to be dysfunctional"


Here's how members of Congress spend their time while in D.C.:

* The work of the country 10%
* Taking bribes from lobbyist 30%
* Talking about how bad the other party is 10%
* Snorting a line of blow off a hooker's ass 20%
* Pontificating 40%
 
2013-03-12 01:24:18 PM  

Old_Chief_Scott: Gleeman: Am I the only one who thinks someone shouldn't be able to make a 'career' out of 'politics'?

No, no you are not. The founding fathers envisioned our representatives coming from among the population at large, serving one or two terms, and then going back to their farm.


Free-range legislators.
 
2013-03-12 01:25:58 PM  

JohnCarter: Let's truly analyze


Here's how members of Congress spend their time while in D.C.:

- 35 percent on "Legislative/Policy Work" - Banging a hooker or pushing through bills for cash
- 17 percent on "Constituent Services Work" - Banging the wife/daughter/son of a donor
- 17 percent on "Political/Campaign Work" - Raising money and getting drunk
- 9 percent on "Press/Media Relations" - Getting drunk on the public dime
- 9 percent with "Family/Friends" - Getting drunk at dinner with "relatives"
- 7 percent on "Administrative/Managerial Work" - Banging an intern
- 6 percent on "Personal Time" - Getting drunk at the private trough


I too, enjoy creating these exact kind of lists. For some reason no one on this site has ever commented on any of them....and I've done dozens. Allow me to say "well done, sir".

Not sure what the % of time spent would be, but they do seem to spend an inordinant amount of their (sorry, OUR) time "saying NO to the other side".  I can't quite figure out which topic it would fit into....all of them perhaps?
 
2013-03-12 01:27:25 PM  

Firethorn: Much of a critter's job is actually social - thus a business lunch actually works pretty well.


No. See the links in my previous post. Most of a congressperson's job now is fundraising for their party and their campaigns. Those "working" lunches, breakfasts and dinners? They're not getting together socially with other lawmakers to discuss legislation... They're fundraising from lobbyists.

This "research" is lobbyists trying to obfuscate how fully lobbyists have taken congress over.
 
2013-03-12 01:28:56 PM  

Dr Dreidel: kiwimoogle84: The fact that they can vote themselves raises and exemptions from OUR laws is what leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

But they can't - any change in pay must be separated from the vote by an election (the 27th Amendment). So they can vote a pay raise for Congress, but they have no idea if they'll get to benefit from it (and it might go to some homosexual socialist or fascist bible-beater). Short of having national referenda every time they want to increase Congress' pay, how do you propose to do it? (As a jumping-off point, I think we should keep the rules we have, only give control of salaries to the other chamber - Senate sets House pay and vice-versa. There's at least a check and a balance there.)

Their kids aren't subject to Obamacare is one I hadn't heard. Is it because their kids (until age 27) are covered by their Congressional parent's plan? What's the deal there? I also hadn't heard about student loans - is that a sweetheart deal given to them by a private company or a matter of law?

// Congresspeople won't know how to live on $35/week for the simple reason that they make $150+k/year in office
// the time to make sure they know about that hardship is during the campaign - vote for the scrapper from the wrong side of the tracks in the primaries, and you'll have decent candidates in the general, and hopefully won't be saddled with a self-promoting prick in the seat
// they'll still be a self-promoter (they're in Congress, after all), but you can't expect that some out-of-touch elitist elected to Congress suddenly "gets it"


Let me see if I can find some citation for you so I don't look like I'm talking out of my arse...

Ok apparently the student loan thing is false, it was just something I heard. But there ARE assistance programs available to family members of congress that we don't get.

As for the healthcare- that's true. They already have their own special coverage, and won't be subject to the same rules as we peons are.

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/senior-hill-staffers-exe mp ted-obamacare

That's all I got for now.
 
2013-03-12 01:39:06 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Congresspeople won't know how to live on $35/week for the simple reason that they make $150+k/year in office


And let's not forget....how much were they worth before they took office?  And after they leave office get caught?

Gotta be rich to get elected to congress.  And one thing we can all agree on:

They all leave office a helluva lot richer than when they entered.
 
2013-03-12 01:41:06 PM  

Dr Dreidel: But they can't - any change in pay must be separated from the vote by an election (the 27th Amendment). So they can vote a pay raise for Congress, but they have no idea if they'll get to benefit from it (and it might go to some homosexual socialist or fascist bible-beater).


One caveat... due to the rampant gerrymandering that's gone on, at this point many members do have a pretty good idea if they're going to be there after the next election. Remember the last election? Democrats beat the pants off of Republicans all over the place... but barely budged the numbers in either chamber.
 
2013-03-12 01:45:22 PM  
I know one guy in Congress who works very hard at drinking whiskey and being orange.
 
2013-03-12 01:45:37 PM  

kiwimoogle84: http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/senior-hill-staffers-exe mp ted-obamacare


Yeesh. Written by Ben Domenech, not known for his journalistic integrity.

But anyway, Congress is "exempt" the same way I am - because my employer offers qualifying health coverage. Grassley's amendment would have closed that program to put members of Congress on the exchanges, but Congress changed it to only apply to members of their staffs and not to the members themselves.

Yeah, it looks bad, but the Congressional health plan (really, the whole benefits package) is a gold-plated sweetheart deal anyway.

// perhaps one of the fixes will be to reinstate that amendment as intended - it should be
 
2013-03-12 01:48:59 PM  

mongbiohazard: Dr Dreidel: But they can't - any change in pay must be separated from the vote by an election (the 27th Amendment). So they can vote a pay raise for Congress, but they have no idea if they'll get to benefit from it (and it might go to some homosexual socialist or fascist bible-beater).

One caveat... due to the rampant gerrymandering that's gone on, at this point many members do have a pretty good idea if they're going to be there after the next election. Remember the last election? Democrats beat the pants off of Republicans all over the place... but barely budged the numbers in either chamber.


And they could also be primaried by the Tea Party for daring to not punch Obama in the face when he walks by. I bet in 2008 Dick Lugar thought his seat was safe. (Ditto Orrin Hatch, but he ended up barely winning.)
 
2013-03-12 01:49:11 PM  
35 percent on "Legislative/Policy Work"   Otherwise known as building pork barrel lists
17 percent on "Constituent Services Work" Also known as finding new ways to screw over everyone who didn't vote for you.
17 percent on "Political/Campaign Work" Best known as the real reason I'm here.
9 percent on "Press/Media Relations"   Locating sympathetic press whores and making them buy dinner.
9 percent with "Family/Friends"   Porking your interns, staffers and dominican teenaged hookers.
7 percent on "Administrative/Managerial Work"   Finding better ways to not do anything constructive next week.
6 percent on "Personal Time"  Golf, fishing, and planning your next campaign smear tactics.
 
2013-03-12 02:02:56 PM  

durbnpoisn: SploogeTime: Congress & Senate = lazy bunch of bought-off turds who are severly underworked and very overpaid.

And this is where I bring up my argument about how to solve all of the problems in government.
Take away the salaries.

If the polititians really cared so much about the job they were doing, they wouldn't need to get paid 6 figures a year.  This is especially true since every last one of them are millionaires to begin with.

Take away the salaries, and all you would have left are people who actually CARE, and would actually DO a good job.  And it wouldn't take 5 years to get a single piece of legislation passed.  Well, except those that give them a pay raise.  Those seem to pass with surpising speed and efficiency.  (Obviously, that wouldn't be a problem anymore either.)


I agree with your sentiments, but as you just said, they're all millionaires to be begin with. Actually, a few newbies aren't, and they're probably the only honest ones, even if they might be tea party or knee jerk liberal idiots. Taking away salaries would mean only millionaires could be in congress. Which is basically true anyway.

I think the salaries are about $160K a year. That's squat in DC. I rent a three bedroom split level, no garage, no basement, 15 miles out of town, $2500 a month, for example. A decent house sells for a million in the burbs, probably three million in the safe parts of DC.

Every once in a while someone in the cabinet, like Tom what's his name who was head of homeland security and had two kids in college, will say they have to quit because they can't cut it financially. Tom was telling the truth. I make $120K a year, I drive a car with 260,000 miles on it, and I have $500 in the bank. And no, I don't live extravagantly, believe it or not. I wouldn't believe it if I didn't live here.
 
2013-03-12 02:03:23 PM  
"They think the most important thing they need to do is staying in touch with their constituents,"

1-media-cdn.foolz.us

"They think the most important thing they need to do is staying in touch with their constituents stay in office so they can bend rules, shirk responsibilities, and amass incredible wealth from bribes and kickbacks,"

There, FTFY
 
2013-03-12 02:06:40 PM  

Dr Dreidel: kiwimoogle84: http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/senior-hill-staffers-exe mp ted-obamacare

Yeesh. Written by Ben Domenech, not known for his journalistic integrity.

But anyway, Congress is "exempt" the same way I am - because my employer offers qualifying health coverage. Grassley's amendment would have closed that program to put members of Congress on the exchanges, but Congress changed it to only apply to members of their staffs and not to the members themselves.

Yeah, it looks bad, but the Congressional health plan (really, the whole benefits package) is a gold-plated sweetheart deal anyway.

// perhaps one of the fixes will be to reinstate that amendment as intended - it should be


I'd never heard of him before- it was purely a result of my google-fu.

And yeah my employer "offers" health benefits too, but I still pay $400 a month for them for just me- not kidding. So there's got to be more to it than that. And yeah, what I'd GIVE to know what the perks are for a member of congressional staff. I'd probably die of happy.
 
2013-03-12 02:21:25 PM  
Actually, I'd imagine they  do work very hard. Politics is basically the art of creating long-lasting connections and manipulating people into doing what you want; that translates to things like a dinner party being work, and always being 'on'.

They just work very hard at being utter assholes.
 
2013-03-12 02:22:45 PM  
If I were paid like they are, got all those benefits, and only worked half a year, I wouldn't be biaotching about it like an ungrateful child.
 
2013-03-12 02:27:09 PM  

durbnpoisn: mod3072: xaratherus: Let's hypothetically assume that the study - which was funded and performed by the Congressional Management Foundation, so there's no possibility of bias there at all - is accurate, and they really do work upwards of 70 hours a week.

I could put in 70 hours a week at my job as well.

That doesn't mean that I'm effectively performing my job, or in fact actually accomplishing anything worthwhile.

So even if we assume that they really are working 70+ hours a week, the product of that work (or lack thereof, as the case may be) indicates that they are not working effectively.

This is basically what I came here to say. I don't give a fat flying fark how hard you say you work or how many hours you put in sexually harassing your interns. Show me some farking results, or show yourself to the door. Try walking in to your boss's office and saying "Hey boss, I didn't get a goddamn thing accomplished last month, but I worked really hard at not getting shiat done!" and see how fast your ass is standing in the unemployment line. Then again, congress has a lower approval rating than that new drug-resistant super-gonorrhea that's going around, but we keep on  re-electing the farkers, so I guess we're just really shiatty bosses.

Who do you suggest we elect?

We are stuck in a "democracy" that is totally broken.  We don't get to choose who we vote for.  People who are in control already simply prop someone up and say, "This is the person that represents our party."  There are only 2 of them in any real position to get elected.  So, you can either vote for one of them, or one of the gazillion independants who stand no chance of getting elected (thus the old adage of "choosing the lesser of 2 evils" or "wasting your vote").

If anyone has any means of fixing this short of outright revolution, I'm all ears.  Otherwise this entire conversation is nothing more than a huge, scentless, fart in the wind.


I agree, it's a shiatty situation and there are no good answers. I generally vote 3rd party if there is a candidate an they're not a complete nutter, but unless a LOT more people start doing the same, it's basically just a protest vote and I don't have any illusions that I'm actually changing anything.
 
2013-03-12 02:32:32 PM  
Bullshiat.
 
2013-03-12 02:51:44 PM  

Xythero: Cybernetic: The House was in session for 153 days in 2012. Yeah, they're totally busting their asses.

House sessions are for presenting and arguing bills.  A lot of work has to be done before that stage in the game.


I understand that. But anyone who pays attention knows that Congress is also fond of long recesses, and is loath to give them up even when pressing matters should be demanding their attention. Last year, the House adjourned 46 days before election day. It hadn't adjourned that far ahead of an election in over 50 years. Between the summer recess and the adjournment, they were in session for a whopping eight whole days.

Congress isn't broken because congressmen are lazy.  Nothing is happening because they won't compromise with each other.  And until the electorate wants something else, that is the way it will be.

Congress is broken because the quality of the people we elect to office is abysmal, on both sides of the aisle--a fact that does say something about the electorate, but says more about an election process that is so poisonous and destructive that for the most part, the only people willing to endure it are in it purely for their own self-interest.

I would estimate that at least 80% (and probably more) of our sitting congressmen are there not to fight for their constituents (although they say that during their campaigns), and not to fight for their principles (assuming they have any). They are there to get themselves set for life--and for the most part, that's exactly what happens.

Because the rewards and perks of being a congressman are substantial. While you're in office, there's the power, the prestige, the deference, the flights home on Air Force C-37A (Gulfstream V) jets, the "fact-finding" trips overseas, and the pension plan that kicks in after only five years. Afterwards, there's the corporate board seats and the seven-figure lobbying deals.

It's a sweet deal for anyone who's willing to whore himself out to get it.

/Yes, I'm cynical.
 
2013-03-12 02:57:33 PM  
... the opposite of 'Pro' is 'Con'.

So the opposite of 'Progress' is 'Congress'.

/Obvious Tag is Obvious
 
2013-03-12 03:02:40 PM  

durbnpoisn: There are only 2 of them in any real position to get elected. So, you can either vote for one of them, or one of the gazillion independants who stand no chance of getting elected (thus the old adage of "choosing the lesser of 2 evils" or "wasting your vote").


The corporate owned media certainly do spend a whole lot of time telling us that if we don't vote for the two parties they already own, we're just "wasting our vote".

The sad part is that people are so gullible that they believe it.

The last time that the rich owned all the politicians was in the Gilded Age, and as it turned out, people could elect representatives who didn't belong to any of the established parties of the day. In a very short span of time, they elected 45 representatives to Congress.

Oddly, once the established parties noticed that they were about to be made irrelevant, they suddenly decided that they should start representing the interests of the people who voted instead of just representing the obscenely wealthy.

We've done it before when the rich completely owned Congress, and we can do it again, if we stop listening to the asshats who tell us we're just "wasting our votes" if we don't keep voting for the parties that sold us out.
 
2013-03-12 03:14:39 PM  
it is safe to say that those people in congress are lazy, insolent pricks.
 
2013-03-12 03:45:25 PM  
So they work 70 hour weeks and still get nothing done?

They're not lazy; they're just horribly incompetent.
 
2013-03-12 03:52:22 PM  

nmemkha: So they work 70 hour weeks and still get nothing done?

They're not lazy; they're just horribly incompetent.



Check the links I posted earlier... They're getting plenty done - just not what this "research" by that lobbyist says they're doing. And not writing laws either.

Hint: You elected fundraisers, not lawmakers.
 
2013-03-12 04:02:38 PM  
For them, "working" consitutes ripping off the American people in order to benefit their wealthy campaign contributors while also enriching themselves and other family members at taxpayer expense.
 
2013-03-12 04:07:51 PM  

Dr Dreidel: And they could also be primaried by the Tea Party for daring to not punch Obama in the face when he walks by. I bet in 2008 Dick Lugar thought his seat was safe. (Ditto Orrin Hatch, but he ended up barely winning.)


That's certainly true in some cases, but not all or even most I'd wager.

And the few folks who have been primaried out have usually had that happen because the gerrymandering has created a safe seat for their party, which changed the dynamics of their individual election. So if their primary challenger won they're going to have much more job security then the person they pushed out had at any time before.

So let's call that a caveat to my caveat.

enemy of the state: I think the salaries are about $160K a year. That's squat in DC. I rent a three bedroom split level, no garage, no basement, 15 miles out of town, $2500 a month, for example. A decent house sells for a million in the burbs, probably three million in the safe parts of DC.

Every once in a while someone in the cabinet, like Tom what's his name who was head of homeland security and had two kids in college, will say they have to quit because they can't cut it financially. Tom was telling the truth. I make $120K a year, I drive a car with 260,000 miles on it, and I have $500 in the bank. And no, I don't live extravagantly, believe it or not. I wouldn't believe it if I didn't live here.



The cost of living is sky-high here to be sure, but you could be doing better. My wife and I combined make less than you (a nice chunk less, around 20%) and we live in a 3BR rented house in Montgomery County - similar distance outside of the city - no garage, no second level though we do have a 1/2 finished basement, do have a fenced yard for my gardens and the pup. Two cars, not low miles but not crazy high either, and our house is about 4-5 blocks from a red-line metro.

Our rent is $700 less a month then yours and we have more in the bank then $500 (not a TON mind you, but certainly more). Houses around here don't go for a million to buy... I mean there are those houses, sure, but even in decent neighborhoods you can easily find a nice house for half of that or less. And for rental if you looked around I'm sure you could find a better rent then what you're getting.

With an extra $20k a year I'd have that boat I want...
 
2013-03-12 05:05:45 PM  
I have no doubt that they have a very strong work ethic. I'm equally certain that their concept of 'work' is close to 180° off mine.
 
2013-03-12 05:49:35 PM  

kiwimoogle84: I was thinking more, pay them like a government servant like they should be. A comfortable 50K per year or something. You don't get rid of the pay ENTIRELY, just stop the overinflation of the salaries when equated to how much work they actually do. Maybe pay them a stipend for part of the year when they're in office- like a deployment salary. Then pay them minimum otherwise.


I'm going to disagree.  Think of the USA like a corporation with the president as the CEO and the House/Senate as boards of directors.  Even if you go outside of the USA's unusually highly paid executives, they're paid what's effectively jack.  Heck, what the average member pays to campaign for their office is often OOMs higher than their pay for the period.

I'd argue that we need to actually INCREASE their pay; but in exchange there's actually hard limits on what they can accept in the way of contributions, gifts, and whatnot.  An annual limit of $100 worth of gifts or something.

mongbiohazard: No. See the links in my previous post. Most of a congressperson's job now is fundraising for their party and their campaigns. Those "working" lunches, breakfasts and dinners? They're not getting together socially with other lawmakers to discuss legislation... They're fundraising from lobbyists.


I think you'd have more point if I hadn't listed 'Campaigning for election/re-election' as the FIRST THING in my breakout of tasks.  The only real difference between us is that I consider the things a critter does to KEEP his job as part of the job.  Want them to work more on running the country and less on keeping their job?  Alter the game.
 
2013-03-12 06:05:30 PM  

Gunny Walker: Cybernetic: The House was in session for 153 days in 2012. Yeah, they're totally busting their asses.

Them's schoolteacher hours.


Less, actually. Teachers work 180-185 days and if they're worth a damn typically put more than eight hours into a day
 
2013-03-12 06:07:04 PM  

Firethorn: I think you'd have more point if I hadn't listed 'Campaigning for election/re-election' as the FIRST THING in my breakout of tasks. The only real difference between us is that I consider the things a critter does to KEEP his job as part of the job. Want them to work more on running the country and less on keeping their job? Alter the game.


Not campaigning, fundraising. There is a difference. They're not talking to constituents and trying to raise support, they're just begging wealthy people for donations. Also their political party requires much of that fundraising to be for the party itself, not necessarily for their own reelection campaigns.

But yes, I gather we are probably largely on the same page here. And I DO want us to change the game. I support full public campaign financing.
 
2013-03-12 08:46:04 PM  
Someone taking The Onion seriously again?

Wait. This is real?! They're allowing congress-critters to make up their own numbers, aren't they...
 
2013-03-12 09:21:58 PM  
I'm assuming the "working" is recorded much the way lawyers do it.  "Oh, I thought about Joe Schmoe's case while I took a shower, better bill him another hour."

Thinking about it that way, I could easily see a congressperson "working" 70 billable hours a week.

"Let's see, I sipped some coffee while joking with a lobbyist, while I had my secretary take a look at my email for me AND I read some letters the staffer sent me [to the lobbyist, so we could both laugh.].  I did that for about 45 minutes.  Guess I might as well round up and book that as three hours..."
 
2013-03-12 10:22:36 PM  
That's odd. I don't recall becoming a prostitute, but apparently not only am I taking it up the ass, I'm being overbilled for it too.
 
2013-03-13 12:23:56 AM  
Wait, how do they account for 100% of their personal time with out allotting any time to sleep or travel?
 
2013-03-13 03:33:23 AM  
70 hour work weeks and they are actually making negative progress, as the deficit is growing exponentially.

I say try a 70 second work week so less damage is done!
 
Displayed 122 of 122 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report