This seems to me to be one of the most idiotic “ethics” issues I can recall, and it’s hard to imagine that it’s not contrived for some reason or other. (Possibly there’s some subtext to this that’s not clearly apparent.)
“nethical and beneath the dignity of the office” are too vague to address. “nfair to the hundreds of members who choose to live outside the Capitol” seems ridiculous - it’s not unfair if the others had the same choice but chose differently. The idea that it’s taxable compensation also seems bogus, as long as it’s primarily an office (perhaps even if it’s not). The sex harassment objection seems extremely speculative at best.
I think one plus of the practice is that it helps poorer people to get elected to congress, and avoids favoring those wealthy enough to afford two apartments with no great sacrifice. (Though it may be a PR gimmick in some cases.)
But perhaps others disagree. Anyone thinks there’s a genuine ethics issue here?
I agree. This seems like a dumb hill to die on. On another note, if they put the congress critters in a dorm with video cameras, we could have the most literal version of Big Brother ever
Two things seem to be getting blurred here. There’s sleeping in your office, which I’ve done, and I can’t really see any objection to. Then there’s living in your office and having no other DC-area residence. While I’m not sure I’d characterize it as an ‘ethics’ issue, it’s not something I’d want congressmen doing. Is the complaint really about the latter, and the language sloppy?
I think it is unseemly to have Federal offices also serve as personal residences. I wouldn’t say that I consider it to be a major issue, or a serious ethical problem. I just think taxpayers should pay for their residences. They get a salary for that sort of stuff.
Congressional salaries are $174K per year. That’s pathetic.
I mean, not pathetic compared to a guy working as an insurance adjuster or such. But pathetic for the level of skill and responsibilities of that office.
Having to rent a second apartment in a high rent area like DC, is not a simple thing for a guy making $174K a year. Again, you can scrape by of course, but it would cut into your lifestyle significantly. (Unless you were independently wealthy or corrupt.)
I’m so sorry that these people were drafted to run for the office and couldn’t do a simple financial analysis to see if they could afford it. plays tiny violin
ETA:Wealth of Congress
You know who makes less than $174K? Congressional staffers. Do staffers get to live rent free in the congressional office building? What about other government employees that have high levels of skills and responsibilities? Are State Department or Department of Defense higher ups living rent free in DC? Stephen Miller makes about the same as a member of congress. Free housing?
One big difference is that there’s no requirement that these various other staffers and employees maintain a residence in a congressional district in some other part of the country, and most of them would just maintain one DC residence and that’s it. The congresspeople need to maintain a permanent residence elsewhere but need to be in DC most of the time, hence the issue.
But FWIW, I’m not aware of any reason these people can’t also sleep in their offices, and perhaps some of them do too.
Of course, not everyone wants to sleep in an office. But that’s a matter of personal choice and priorities.
For once I agree with F-P. Housing in DC is outrageous. If some of them choose to sleep in their offices rather than fork over ridiculous rent, why not? They save some bucks, aren’t adding to the traffic, and are reducing the housing demand in DC and putting downward pressure on rents by so doing. I think its win-win-win.
Yeah, I opened the article fully expecting to find some key piece of information the OP left out.
Mark that one up to my preconceived notions–there’s nothing in the article that makes me think this is anything more than petulant snippy bullshit on the part of the complainers. Show me a real problem–an actual issue with sanitation, actual workers complaining about mistreatment, anything–and I’ll consider the complaint.
Short of that? Man, screw that noise.
ETA: One possible reason for this complaint–is it possible that Tea Partiers have been arguing against increasing housing allowances for Congressfolk, on the grounds that they sleep in their offices, so other people can, too? If that’s going on, this makes a little more sense; but I’m not seeing evidence of it, except mayyyyybe for this bit:
I think you missed the point. It’s undesirable for us as a society for potentially good people to do the simple financial analysis and then decide not to run and serve for that reason. Then the only people you get in office are the already wealthy, or those with a plan to cash in after serving a few terms (or worse, while they’re serving a few terms.)
I can see that there is a point where it would be a problem: does each congressional office have it’s own restroom? I assume they are showering at the gym. My impression was it was just 1-2 people that do this, but if it’s like 50, I can see that being a weird strain: bathroom and gym shower facilities are not made to accommodate those sorts of numbers and I would imagine there would be effects. I’m envisioning 10 guys all trying to shave and brush their teeth in an office building restroom, and I can see that it would be a problem.
As I understand it, there is no housing allowance for members of congress. (See, here, from the Congressional Research Service: “they are not eligible for housing or per diem allowances for expenses incurred in Washington, DC.”).
