Like you’d live in a shithole?
Living in DC is cheap. There are plenty who get by on much less than what she has. She has made a rather obvious choice. Which is fine.
I thought you may have a problem with the insinuation, but maybe not?
Of course not. But I am not crafting an image of Jenny-from-the-block-socialist.
The problem is that you don’t know what she has or where she has chosen to live.
I know where she has not chosen to live. That is the whole point. But hey, if she chooses to make a concession by deviating from the interesting political persona she is crafting, that is her choice.
Unless she is currently living in public housing or on some subsidy, she could afford to live in certain neighborhoods of DC. It’s a simple deduction really.
The doctor with the little flashlight will demonstrate.
Plus, she’s using this to make the points that (a) running for Congress and making it is expensive and there’s a high threshold for your average working Joe/Jane to get there – and (b) if a work relocation like this one is an expensive (in time, money and effort) schlep for someone like her, imagine how is it for your average worker.
As to Congress per se: I suppose more easily than for a housing subsidy one could argue for a one-time relocation package for Congressional Freshmen that does NOT pay for everything but requires a percentage match and has a hard maximum calculated on the basis of market rents and moving costs tiered by distance. (But then what about the staffers?)
Again (how many times is this now, five?), the issue at hand is living in DC before her first paycheck. During which time she is not allowed to earn income in the way I do to “get by” here.
Financially strapped individual with access to levers of power: nothing could possibly go wrong.
Don’t they look at your financials when applying for a security clearance? Strapped individuals are considered risky in many situations in everyday life.
I think we can draw some conclusions about you.
It can’t be any worse than financially secure people with access to the levers of power. Because we’ve all seen how that works out.
If you have any evidence that not being able to maintain residences in your home district and in DC without drawing a paycheck is a security clearance problem, we look forward reviewing your citations.
Do you still stand by this now that we’ve re-explained the OP and article to you, or should we expect your retraction shortly?
And I have no doubt they will be informed and accurate.
I have a feeling that it could be worse, but I’m not carrying anti-capitalist baggage.
Didn’t say it was, but not being able to swing a few grand for a few months rent does indicate a certain lack of financial stability.
Is she choosing not to live in certain DC neigborhoods? Yes.
Unless she is currently on the dole, could she afford a place in DC? Yes.
True. What you’re molding is something else entirely.
Neither do I.
Simplest solution. She bunks up with a sitting Congress-critter. Seems this should mitigate the “illegal contribution” questions. I’m sure there are penalties to using campaign contributions to bridge this gap, though I’m not 100% certain that makes sense as she’s not actually in office yet and this wouldn’t be strictly “a personal benefit”.
It is patently absurd that this problem exists, though.
My favorite solution that is probably unworkable…each state has to pony up for it’s own Washington mansion. Treat it like a embassy, the state funds from it’s tax revenue a home in Washington that each Senator and Congressman can use as their home and outside office.
I think that offers some interesting benefits, if your mansion-mates are from the other party it might create a more collegial environment where state-centric bipartisanship can blossom. It creates a little more connectivity between the Senate and the House. It eases the office crowding that exists inside Congress and perhaps makes room for some of the support staff to work in more comfort. It gives citizens from each state a new tourist attraction in Washington to visit. It hopefully makes the point to the elected officials that they still represent their states.
I’m also sure that there are a lot of downsides (and maybe this happened in the past and failed, I’m too lazy to Google it) that I haven’t thought of. Perhaps it would introduce new conflicts of interest and/or create more silos in government.
The easy fix is that we just allow Congresspeople to apply for a short-term stipend from the Government to bridge the gap. We can give it to everyone automatically as either an advance of their salary or to augment their salary or we make it need based. I prefer the former even if that means a bunch of rich assholes get extra government money because it eliminates any political gamesmanship around assessing “need”.
Congresspeople are ridiculously underpaid. Paying them a commensurate salary would do a great deal to both invite participation from more qualified people (and people who aren’t already wealthy) and offset a portion of the incentive to be corrupt and take special interest money.
This post shows that you know nothing of what you are writing. What, in your world, does a security clearance have to do with anything we are talking about?
Biden lived in Delaware. Try commuting cross country. Not quite logical.
Who said she didn’t know how to handle her finances once she has an income?
Not really. Members of Congress like Tom McClintock don’t live in their district, so there’s nothing that requires them to maintain households outside of the DC area.