Would you say that about any other job? I mean, I’m not worked up about it but it is kind of messed up using office space as a semi-permanent crash pad.
Is that true? I would have assumed that you would need to be a resident of your home district (at least to run for reelection). Leave aside the political controversy that seems to occur when it turns out that you no longer live in your home state (for example, Mary Landrieu or Dick Luger), I would assume you were not allowed to run for office in a state in which you were not a resident.
Mea culpa, I was wrong about this. You don’t need to be a resident of the district, but you do need to be a resident of the state.
Who are these people that shun a $174k/year job?
You worry only rich people would take such a job but then only the very rich actually make more than that to start with. $174k/year put you easily above the 90% mark for wage earners in this country. Seems to me 90% of the people in this country would LOVE that salary (not to mention the really nice benefits package that goes with it).
A second residence in DC is not the same as a full blown house in your district. You need a studio apartment at most. Here is a studio apartment in a nice building in DC for $1585/month. (Frankly that is absurdly overpriced compared to most cities but that’s DC I guess.) That took me all of five minutes to find. I am sure I could find cheaper if I searched outside of DC.
So that is $19,000/year for that studio apartment. Add in utilities and call it $22,000/year (being generous on those costs). 174,000 - 22,000 = 152,000
$152,000/year is still above the 90% mark for wage earners in the US (IIRC 90% is around $132K). Worst case scenario you are from San Francisco. Median income in the Bay area is $96,677. You’re still doing great.
Not really seeing the problem here.
Unfortunately, it is only the rich and well connected who are able to run for congress in the first place. You not only need the money for the campaign, but you also need to be able to take substantial time off work for at least a couple months before the election and primary, which is often hard for those who are not already fairly wealthy.
So, all the complaints that lowering the salary means that only rich people can be in congress doesn’t make any sense. The system is currently that only rich people can run for congress, then complain about the pay. If you want people in congress that are representative of the vast majority of the population, then we need to change the way we elect congress, not offer more pay and perks.
Then you get people in there that can’t figure out how to make ends meet when they are drawing a salary more than 97% of the rest of the country, and wondering why they can’t balance the federal budget. In some ways, balancing the federal budget is hard, but it has to be even harder for someone who isn’t even able to manage their own finances. It very well could be much easier than they make it out to be.
If they are actually living there, it’s inappropriate and downright disgusting and should be stopped. If it’s simply spending a night on the couch with a fresh change of clothes in the morning, then that is an entirely different matter.
The quotes I saw were conflicting. I saw the word “sleeping” several times, but not the word “living”. It did say, however; “[E]ach Member’s office within the building should be used to serve the people of the Member’s district, not as a personal residence. The House office buildings are not apartment complexes, homes or any other kind of residence.”
Can anyone clarify this with a certainty?
Hard to see what your point might be, unless you’re of the view that anyone who happens to “be a Republican” must rightly maintain all views espoused by Fotheringay-Phipps.
To be sure, I personally would take that standard even further, and expand it to everyone of any political stripe. But as it stands at this time, there seems to be a lot of divergence in many areas, and this could well be one of them.
The cold hard question is this: Do you want the average New York city resident as your Congressional representative? Do you want him or her fighting for your issues? Do you want the average New Yorker making decisions effecting your life?
The kind of person that I want representing me in Congress isn’t your average Joe to be honest. I want someone who is smarter than average, more driven than average, more politically savvy than average. And many of the guys that I want won’t take $174k with the (soft) requirement to have two households.
People that make more than that now.
People who don’t want their wife and kids living in one state, and they live in another.
People who don’t want to give up a job they have now making less than that now, knowing they could be looking for a job in two years.
The article in the OP has a link to a pdf of the actual letter, it’s only a couple of pages. It may be a little ambiguous still but the first formal question they ask of the committee is:
To me, that means using your office like a hotel
A small minority of the population and not representative of it.
Who moves their families to Washington DC? I’m not saying it never happens but I an betting it is rare. The president does of course but then we give him a house to live in.
Same would be true of someone making more than that. Even more true for them likely unless you get to so wealthy that they really don’t need a salary.
Well you should probably give up on that because there is no way on God’s green earth Congressional salaries are ever going to compete with whatever CEO salaries you have in mind.
I am not overly fussed if they live in their office. If it is an issue let an opponent bring it up in an election and if their voters care they vote them out.
I care more that this is a starting ploy to getting a housing stipend for congress.
Maybe but maybe they are just trying to stick it to a particular grouping of Congressmen who do this most regularly. The letter also asks if perhaps Members who do this should be getting taxed on the free rent they are taking.
I saw the question raised but I didn’t see an answer – are these people sleeping on couches or beds? As in, is this a case of “I don’t need much sleep and I’ll crash on the couch when I’m in town,” or “Convert Jim’s office to a bedroom, he can grab space in the conference room when I’m in town.”?
I’m not 100% sure but from what I gather they are using cots that presumably fold up and go in a closet or fold-away beds in a couch.
FWIW, here’s the Roll Call article the letter references:
Members Living in Their Offices Rent-Free Adds Up
From it:
Probably just a political jab and a not very good one in my view.
Tax angle is a bit more interesting but I cannot imagine that amounts to much. How do you even assess the office value as a bedroom?
I don’t know but not nothing. Reading the Roll Call article there’s actually some precedent in favour of the letter writers:
The average home price in Denver is over $500K is your suggestion that only people making $250k a year or more are capable of being representitivies for denver? Or that they should be required to sell their denver home and move their family if they really cared? I guess you could be suggesting that Denver’s reps should live in below median housing and sleep in their office but that really seems like a hard sell. I’d get a slight raise working in Congress but my standard of living would absolutely drop.