Banner ad

Wednesday, October 07, 2009

Forget those promises for a five-day workweek in the House

Remember when the Democrats took over the House in 2006 and promised that they end the two and three-day workweeks that have become common practice on Capitol Hill? Well, surprise, surprise.
After taking control of the House in 2006 — and again when President Barack Obama was elected president in 2008 — Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) boasted that lawmakers would work four or five days a week to bring change to America.
That is yet another promise that hasn't been kept.
But midway through Obama’s first year in office, Hoyer’s House has settled into a more leisurely routine. Members usually arrive for the first vote of the week as the sun sets on Tuesdays, and they’re usually headed back home before it goes down again on Thursdays.

Since the House returned for its fall session on Sept. 8, it has stuck around to vote on a Friday just once: to approve a 5.8 percent increase in Congress’s own budget.
Ah, the dream job. Work two and a half days and you get to vote on your own salaries and expenses.

Steny Hoyer blames the Senate for holding up bills.
Asked about the abbreviated workweeks, Hoyer said Tuesday: “I think you understand why we’re doing it.” He pointed to the appropriations bills stalled in the Senate, but he didn’t cast blame at senators for moving so slowly. “It takes a long time to do it,” he said.

“We’d all love to see some bills back [from the Senate] quickly,” said a Democratic aide.

The House got off to a fast start this year, approving a stimulus plan, an omnibus spending bill and climate change legislation, as well as getting health care reform bills through three committees. But now lawmakers and staff are enjoying an Indian summer of sorts; Mondays are dead, and Fridays have the Hill set clad in jeans and oxfords, awaiting the next vote four long days away.
That shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone who has as much experience on Capitol Hill as Steny Hoyer. Did he think that the Senate would suddenly transform itself into a streamlined, efficient machine? He knew better.

The problem is not the short work hours in the House, but that Hoyer was either so deluded or so deceptive that he could promise with a straight face to change the ways of the House of Representatives.

6 comments:

tfhr said...

Do I need to say it?

Alright then - TERM LIMITS!

We could also save a bundle by relegating these bastards to a compensation package they deserve. Since they only "work" part time, how about a package befitting that status?

I just registered to vote in Maryland two days ago. Hoyer can look forward to hearing from me as he is my representative now. I think I'm going to be sick.

Freeven said...

This is a feature, not a bug. I wish we could get them to work *less* often. Perhaps Texas has the right idea, with their legislature meeting every other year.

David Aitken said...

Someone once suggested that the Wyoming legislature, which meets every 2 years for 40 days, should instead meet every 40 years for 2 days.

Bintohead said...

well, to be fair - they're only "in session" Tuesday evening till Thursday evening.

But it's not like they're not doing other stuff the rest of the week.

Most of them are shuttling back and forth between DC and their districts as well.

But, I agree with the comment that it's probably better to have them work less - rather than more. If they spend more time in session - they might feel the need to pass more legislation to justify they time they're spending there.

This is one of those things that Hoyer probably did to try and make it look like the Democrats would get more accomplished. However, it was a throw away statement - and nobody was meant to follow up on it.

Pat Patterson said...

I blame it all on air conditioning and vaccinations!

Steelweaver52 said...

I agree with the others who suggest that they actually work too much.

However, I am not necessarily in favor of limiting the "work week" per se. Rather, I would prefer that we limit the number of months that Congress is allowed to convene.

In fact, if we decreed that Congress could only meet -- or "work" -- three months per year, they would be much more inclined to limit themselves to their constitutional responsibilities, and thus avoid mischief.

I would be willing to triple their salaries in exchange for their pledge to work only three months per year. I guarantee you, it would be a fantastic deal for the American taxpayer.