Congress will be Voting Themselves a Raise? (2 Viewers)

[parasaurolophus]

Always amazing to me that conservatives who praise the ability of the marketplace to price things 99.9% of the time suddenly find the marketplace useless and irrelevant when it comes to salaries. When it comes to salaries the government is effectively just another private sector actor. If valued employees can get better pay elsewhere, they will leave. And if it pays more, it will get better employees.

You are shocked that people think government jobs are different than other jobs? That seems kinda weird. 

 

[TobiasFunke]

You are shocked that people think government jobs are different than other jobs? That seems kinda weird. 

The fact that you think this about "government jobs" being different, and not about how when it comes to the labor market the government is an actor no different than its private sector counterparts all competing for the same resource, is kind of my point.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Yeah, it's the people making $160K driving up the cost of living in DC. Definitely not the armies of government contractors and private sector attorneys and lobbyists and tech people making seven figures. That's why the cost of living is so much lower in similar American cities with thriving industries and lower rates of public sector employment like Boston, San Francisco and New York.

This exists because in most offices the government is incapable of doing the job themselves.  And talented workers don't want to be stuck in terrible working environments.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Always amazing to me that conservatives who praise the ability of the marketplace to price things 99.9% of the time suddenly find the marketplace useless and irrelevant when it comes to salaries. When it comes to salaries the government is effectively just another private sector actor. If valued employees can get better pay elsewhere, they will leave. And if it pays more, it will get better employees.

Most tech. people I know that work for the government over contracting is because they want to coast and know the retirement benefits are pretty sweet.  Most of them don't even hide this and in many cases openly brag about it.   It's not a left/right thing either from my experience.

 

[Summer Wheat]

Always amazing to me that conservatives who praise the ability of the marketplace to price things 99.9% of the time suddenly find the marketplace useless and irrelevant when it comes to salaries. When it comes to salaries the government is effectively just another private sector actor. If valued employees can get better pay elsewhere, they will leave. And if it pays more, it will get better employees.

I am not conservative and don`t believe this at all when it comes to elected officials. This is really not a partisan issue either as many in both parties serve.

Most mayors, and governors are sponsored by others who feel they will be in their best interests if they get elected and they are in office for years no matter what kind of job they do.

Congress is not a company that can dump bad employees after 6 months . These people are elected, not interviewed and hired and fired by the HR person.  So no matter the salary is there in no guarantee the best person will be elected.  Look at the last POTUS election. They left us with 2 choices and neither were the brightest and best. 

 

[tommyGunZ]

I am not conservative and don`t believe this at all when it comes to elected officials. This is really not a partisan issue either as many in both parties serve.

Most mayors, and governors are sponsored by others who feel they will be in their best interests if they get elected and they are in office for years no matter what kind of job they do.

Congress is not a company that can dump bad employees after 6 months . These people are elected, not interviewed and hired and fireds by the HR person.  So no matter the salary is there in no guarantee the best person will be elected.  Look at the last POTUS election. They left us with 2 choices and neither were the brightest and best. 

We the people hire and fire our political leaders.  Idiots and criminals are hired in the private sector daily.  This idea that there is no accountability in public office is bull####.  There absolutely  is accountability, it’s simply up to voters to hold those working for them to a higher standard.  At the present time, one half of America is failing to do so.  

 

[Summer Wheat]

We the people hire and fire our political leaders.  Idiots and criminals are hired in the private sector daily.  This idea that there is no accountability in public office is bull####.  There absolutely  is accountability, it’s simply up to voters to hold those working for them to a higher standard.  At the present time, one half of America is failing to do so.  

I agree..half the people have no idea who their congress person is or who is their senator. That is why we are not assured the best will be voted in anyway.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I am not conservative and don`t believe this at all when it comes to elected officials. This is really not a partisan issue either as many in both parties serve.

Most mayors, and governors are sponsored by others who feel they will be in their best interests if they get elected and they are in office for years no matter what kind of job they do.

Congress is not a company that can dump bad employees after 6 months . These people are elected, not interviewed and hired and fired by the HR person.  So no matter the salary is there in no guarantee the best person will be elected.  Look at the last POTUS election. They left us with 2 choices and neither were the brightest and best. 

My post was about the career civil servants whose pay is capped by congressional pay, not congress itself or other elected officials for that matter. There are far more of the former than the latter. Those people are the reason for the legislation on congressional pay.

Nevertheless, pay impacts the quality of candidates for congress, too. If we paid them more we'd get better candidates for the job. Maybe you think the difference is insignificant enough that it's better to spend that money elsewhere, but it definitely has some impact on the talent pool. The people who are "in office for years no matter what kind of job they do" might not be able to stay in office if the job offered better pay, thus inducing more and better challengers.

 

[Summer Wheat]

My post was about the career civil servants whose pay is capped by congressional pay, not congress itself or other elected officials for that matter. There are far more of the former than the latter. Those people are the reason for the legislation on congressional pay.

Nevertheless, pay impacts the quality of candidates for congress, too. If we paid them more we'd get better candidates for the job. Maybe you think the difference is insignificant enough that it's better to spend that money elsewhere, but it definitely has some impact on the talent pool. The people who are "in office for years no matter what kind of job they do" might not be able to stay in office if the job offered better pay, thus inducing more and better challengers.

Do you truly believe that 80 more dollars a week will bring in a whole new level of congress candidates? 

 

[TobiasFunke]

Do you truly believe that 80 more dollars a week will bring in a whole new level of congress candidates? 

I assumed that you had missed my previous posts that made the point that the legislation and my perspective was more about career civil servants than congressional pay. But this time I clarified that up front, so I'm not sure why you're trying to cross-examine me on this secondary point.

Anyway ... any increase in compensation is going to improve the talent pool. I assume a small increase will only have a minimal impact on the talent pool, but I was talking about the general idea of improving pay, not this particular proposal.  Although even this particular proposal has value, because it indicates that their pay won't be permanently frozen by political realities. $80 a week is basically nothing; knowing that your pay won't be frozen at 2009 levels until 2040 or beyond is not.

But again, to make sure you don't miss the point- I really don't care that much about congressional salaries. I'm much more concerned with DOJ or FEMA or SEC or EPA salaries that are tied to and capped by congressional salaries. I want at least some the very best experts in the country on the incredibly important issues they deal with working for the good guys.

 

[Summer Wheat]

I assumed that you had missed my previous posts that made the point that the legislation and my perspective was more about career civil servants than congressional pay. But this time I clarified that up front, so I'm not sure why you're trying to cross-examine me on this secondary point.

Anyway ... any increase in compensation is going to improve the talent pool. I assume a small increase will only have a minimal impact on the talent pool, but I was talking about the general idea of improving pay, not this particular proposal.  Although even this particular proposal has value, because it indicates that their pay won't be permanently frozen by political realities. $80 a week is basically nothing; knowing that your pay won't be frozen at 2009 levels until 2040 or beyond is not.

But again, to make sure you don't miss the point- I really don't care that much about congressional salaries. I'm much more concerned with DOJ or FEMA or SEC or EPA salaries that are tied to and capped by congressional salaries. I want at least some the very best experts in the country on the incredibly important issues they deal with working for the good guys.

I understand.  Other raises should not be tied into any positions. That should be changed.  As far as congress goes I heard that as many as 50% from both parties are already millionaires and made their money before they even run for office. So they would still run if the pay was 150K a year.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I understand.  Other raises should not be tied into any positions. That should be changed.  As far as congress goes I heard that as many as 50% from both parties are already millionaires and made their money before they even run for office. So they would still run if the pay was 150K a year.

Seems to me that this makes the exact opposite point that you intend. Maybe if the financial reward was greater people who aren't already millionaires might be more willing to take the risk

 

[the moops]

Seems to me that this makes the exact opposite point that you intend. Maybe if the financial reward was greater people who aren't already millionaires might be more willing to take the risk

And there is risk involved in that you need to reapply to your job every 2 years. The millionaires have no problem if they lose a re-election for they have plenty of money to fall back on. 

 

[Summer Wheat]

Seems to me that this makes the exact opposite point that you intend. Maybe if the financial reward was greater people who aren't already millionaires might be more willing to take the risk

 What risk is taking a job that pays 174K a year with top flight bennies, a full staff doing your legwork, and much more vacation time than the average American employee? That is a dam sweet gig.

And if they get voted out most member of congress are offered jobs as lobbyists.

 

[jonessed]

You are shocked that people think government jobs are different than other jobs? That seems kinda weird. 

Yeah.  It’s pretty rare to find cases where employees can mandate their own pay.  I’m not seeing how this is a good comparison.

 

[parasaurolophus]

 What risk is taking a job that pays 174K a year with top flight bennies, a full staff doing your legwork, and much more vacation time than the average American employee? That is a dam sweet gig.

And if they get voted out most member of congress are offered jobs as lobbyists.

or consultants. This risk is small. What % lose reelection after first term? 1%? 

So what people are really assuming risk? People that make between 200k and 500k that are not small business owners and would not benefit form the connections they gain? 

 

[TobiasFunke]

 What risk is taking a job that pays 174K a year with top flight bennies, a full staff doing your legwork, and much more vacation time than the average American employee? That is a dam sweet gig.

And if they get voted out most member of congress are offered jobs as lobbyists.

The risk is in running and losing, which is costly and difficult and pays nothing with no bennies or vacation time.  You seem to be only able to contemplate current members for some reason. My whole point is that if you paid more you'd get better candidates. You seem to be missing my point completely.

Also, this is unrelated but people need to stop conflating recess and "vacation time." I don't know if you are doing that here or if you are privy to members' schedules or something, so this isn't necessarily directed at you. But just as a general matter, when people conflate the two it's really silly. Members of congress work during the vast majority of recess time, either in DC or in their home districts campaigning and meeting with constituents in one form or another.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Yeah.  It’s pretty rare to find cases where employees can mandate their own pay.  I’m not seeing how this is a good comparison.

The comparison I was making when talking about the labor market was civil servants whose pay is tied to congressional pay and can get much more in the private sector, not to the members. That was my main point. I have no idea why people are focusing on my minor secondary point about the quality of candidates.  Maybe because my main point was brilliant and impenetrable

 

[Summer Wheat]

The risk is in running and losing, which is costly and difficult and pays nothing with no bennies or vacation time.  You seem to be only able to contemplate current members for some reason. My whole point is that if you paid more you'd get better candidates. You seem to be missing my point completely.

Also, this is unrelated but people need to stop conflating recess and "vacation time." I don't know if you are doing that here or if you are privy to members' schedules or something, so this isn't necessarily directed at you. But just as a general matter, when people conflate the two it's really silly. Members of congress work during the vast majority of recess time, either in DC or in their home districts campaigning and meeting with constituents in one form or another.

OK..you convinced me.  Give them the 60 bucks a week after taxes raise. Maybe it will open up more people to take a "risk"

 

[The Commish]

When it comes to salaries the government is effectively just another private sector actor. 

Well except these are positions that are elected and we can't just fire them and if they start around long enough they are paid after they are no longer on office. 

These are not attributes of the private sector except for some union jobs that provide pensions

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

You are shocked that people think government jobs are different than other jobs? That seems kinda weird. 

The fact that you think this about "government jobs" being different, and not about how when it comes to the labor market the government is an actor no different than its private sector counterparts all competing for the same resource, is kind of my point.

I largely agree with parasauropophus here (sidestepping the issue you raised about civil servants).

The government is constrained by the labor market in that it can't hire top-tier employees without offering top-tier compensation. It must compete with private employers for labor, and it must offer something reasonable in comparison to what private employers are offering for any given level of competence.

But the government is unlike private employers because private employers are subject to multiple countervailing forces that generally set wages based on economic laws of physics rather than by fiat. A private employer will generally (in a hypothetical market with perfect competition and perfect information) pay an employee exactly what he's worth -- i.e., exactly what he adds to the bottom line of the company. If a given employer offers less than that, his competition will outbid him and he won't be able to attract employees. If a given employer offers more than that, his competition will undercut him on the price of the finished goods or services, and he won't be able to attract customers. In the real world, things aren't that precise, but the same general idea holds, albeit in messier fashion.

When the government is the employer, it's not subject to that second kind of competition. Wages aren't set within a narrow range by overall market forces (both the labor market and the market for its good and services). Rather, they are set by fiat. There is no competitive market for federal legislation such that if Congress doesn't hire good enough legislators, people will move to France. I mean, that's possible in extreme cases, but the transaction costs of moving largely insulate Congress from that kind of competitive pressure.

A private company will go out of business if it underpays (and can't attract employees) or overpays (and can't attract customers).

Congress won't go out of business in either case. If it underpays, it will produce a crappy product that customers still generally won't switch away from because the transaction costs of moving are prohibitive. And if it overpays, there's really no obvious penalty in the marketplace. In theory, overpaying for Senators is a waste because it will cause people to become Senators even if they'd be worth more to society as entrepreneurs or CEOs. In practice, there's no real danger of that -- we could definitely use better House Members and Senators even if we had to pay ten times as much for them as we currently do. Good ones would be worth that much (really, much more).

Unfortunately, that highlights another difference between private employment and public office. In private employment situations, the people doing the hiring and firing typically know what they're doing and are paying attention. There are principal-agent problems, to be sure, but board members ultimately respond to the shareholders, and the stock market is hard to bamboozle. Voters, by contrast, are (rationally) ignorant dupes. Give a private employer more money to throw at a position, and he'll probably make better hires at that position. Throw more money at members of Congress, and the public will still just vote for demagogic cranks all the same. That's one argument against raising Congressional pay.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I largely agree with parasauropophus here (sidestepping the issue you raised about civil servants).

The government is constrained by the labor market in that it can't hire top-tier employees without offering top-tier compensation. It must compete with private employers for labor, and it must offer something reasonable in comparison to what private employers are offering for any given level of competence.

But the government is unlike private employers because private employers are subject to multiple countervailing forces that generally set wages based on economic laws of physics rather than by fiat. A private employer will generally (in a hypothetical market with perfect competition and perfect information) pay an employee exactly what he's worth -- i.e., exactly what he adds to the bottom line of the company. If a given employer offers less than that, his competition will outbid him and he won't be able to attract employees. If a given employer offers more than that, his competition will undercut him on the price of the finished goods or services, and he won't be able to attract customers. In the real world, things aren't that precise, but the same general idea holds.

When the government is the employer, it's not subject to that second kind of competition. Wages aren't set within a narrow range by overall market forces (both the labor market and the market for its good and services). Rather, they are set by fiat. There is no competitive market for federal legislation such that if Congress doesn't hire good enough legislators, people will move to France. I mean, that's possible in extreme cases, but the transaction costs of moving largely insulate Congress from that kind of competitive pressure.

A private company will go out of business if it underpays (and can't attract employees) or overpays (and can't attract customers).

Congress won't go out of business in either case. If it underpays, it will produce a crappy product that customers still generally won't switch away from because the transaction costs of moving are prohibitive. And if it overpays, there's really no obvious penalty in the marketplace. In theory, overpaying for Senators is a waste because it will cause people to become Senators even if they'd be worth more to society as entrepreneurs or CEOs. In practice, there's no real danger of that -- we could definitely use better House Members and Senators even if we had to pay ten times as much for them as we currently do. Good ones would be worth that much.

Unfortunately, that highlights another difference between private employment and public office. In private employment situations, the people doing the hiring and firing typically know what they're doing and are paying attention. There are principal-agent problems, to be sure, but board members ultimately respond to the shareholders, and the stock market is hard to bamboozle. Voters, by contrast, are (rationally) ignorant dupes. Give a private employer more money to throw at a position, and he'll probably make better hires at that position. Throw more money at members of Congress, and the public will still just vote for demagogic cranks all the same. That's one argument against raising Congressional pay.

When I said "when it comes to the labor market the government is an actor no different than its private sector counterparts all competing for the same resource" I was talking about civil service, not elected officials. This was the post that started the discussion. I think maybe the context was lost bc of the page break.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

When I said "when it comes to the labor market the government is an actor no different than its private sector counterparts all competing for the same resource" I was talking about civil service, not elected officials. This was the post that started the discussion. I think maybe the context was lost bc of the page break.

Well, then, never mind.

 

[Mr Anonymous]

Isn't this kind of like waitressing and bartending? The people seeking high office aren't exactly in it for the base pay? If money is a driving force, you know instead of civil service, then their eyes are on much bigger prizes on the side. Which makes the annual salary kind of irrelevant. 

 

[TobiasFunke]

Isn't this kind of like waitressing and bartending? The people seeking high office aren't exactly in it for the base pay? If money is a driving force, you know instead of civil service, then their eyes are on much bigger prizes on the side.

Sure, but money always plays a role, no matter how small.  If money was the driving force instead of public service we wouldn't have to pay our doctors very much either, but I suspect that if they were being honest most med school students would tell you that doctor salaries factored in their decision at least a little bit.

 

[parasaurolophus]

When I said "when it comes to the labor market the government is an actor no different than its private sector counterparts all competing for the same resource" I was talking about civil service, not elected officials. This was the post that started the discussion. I think maybe the context was lost bc of the page break.

I found that article incredibly difficult to understand. I dont see a correlation between pay for congress and the maximum pay for general schedule. Both of those went up in 2018 whereas congress didnt.

Unless i am reading the more current info incorrectly. 

 

[squistion]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez‏ @AOC 3h3 hours ago

Yep. Voting against cost of living increases for members of Congress may sound nice, but doing so only increases pressure on them to keep dark money loopholes open. This makes campaign finance reform *harder.* ALL workers deserve cost of living increases, incl min wage workers

What this does is punish members who rely on a straight salary, and reward those who rely on money loopholes and other forms of self-dealing. For example, it incentivizes the horrible kinds of legislative looting we saw in the GOP tax scam bill.

It’s not a fun or politically popular position to take. But consistency is important. ALL workers should get cost of living increases. That’s why minimum wage should be pegged to inflation, too. Voting against cost of living increases is 1 reason why dark $ loopholes stay open.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez‏ @AOC 3h3 hours ago

Yep. Voting against cost of living increases for members of Congress may sound nice, but doing so only increases pressure on them to keep dark money loopholes open. This makes campaign finance reform *harder.* ALL workers deserve cost of living increases, incl min wage workers

What this does is punish members who rely on a straight salary, and reward those who rely on money loopholes and other forms of self-dealing. For example, it incentivizes the horrible kinds of legislative looting we saw in the GOP tax scam bill.

It’s not a fun or politically popular position to take. But consistency is important. ALL workers should get cost of living increases. That’s why minimum wage should be pegged to inflation, too. Voting against cost of living increases is 1 reason why dark $ loopholes stay open.

In other words Show me the money!

 

[Opie]

Yeah...they deserve that raise.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Yeah...they deserve that raise.

I was wondering if someone was going to post this. 

Jon Stewart was dead right.  As he often is.  What a joke most of the politicians in this country are. 

 

[dkp993]

Yeah...they deserve that raise.

I was wondering if someone was going to post this. 

Jon Stewart was dead right.  As he often is.  What a joke most of the politicians in this country are

Came in here to post this after reading an article about it.   Good for Jon and shame on Congress.  Only 5 representatives were there, disgraceful and embarrassing. 

 

[joffer]

Came in here to post this after reading an article about it.   Good for Jon and shame on Congress.  Only 5 representatives were there, disgraceful and embarrassing. 

what committee was that?

 

[dkp993]

what committee was that?

https://deadline.com/2019/06/jon-stewart-congress-9-11-house-judiciary-committee-shameful-1202630945/

Watch the video. 

I'm a pretty mellow dude, not a lot gets me hot.  Watching this does, it's shameful.  

 

[parasaurolophus]

https://deadline.com/2019/06/jon-stewart-congress-9-11-house-judiciary-committee-shameful-1202630945/

Watch the video. 

I'm a pretty mellow dude, not a lot gets me hot.  Watching this does, it's shameful.  

How do they just no show?

 

[The Commish]

what committee was that?

House Judiciary Committee

 

[The Commish]

If they seat the people in this committee like the others, this isn't a good look for a particular group.  I wouldn't be surprised if this is played over and over this election season.  Stewart needs to keep doing what he's doing on these topics.  He's very good at it and dead on 95% of the time.

 

[SHIZNITTTT]

If they seat the people in this committee like the others, this isn't a good look for a particular group.  I wouldn't be surprised if this is played over and over this election season.  Stewart needs to keep doing what he's doing on these topics.  He's very good at it and dead on 95% of the time.

 Would love to see him run for office. 

 

[TobiasFunke]

I could defend this one too- this is standard practice for congressional hearings, if they didn't run hearings this way there would simply be a lot fewer hearings which really just harms the people fighting for their noble causes who want to be heard and on camera, yadda yadda yadda.

But it's exhausting, and this particular hill isn't a great one to die on.  If you wanna get your licks in go for it I guess.

 

[dkp993]

I could defend this one too- this is standard practice for congressional hearings, if they didn't run hearings this way there would simply be a lot fewer hearings which really just harms the people fighting for their noble causes who want to be heard and on camera, yadda yadda yadda.

But it's exhausting, and this particular hill isn't a great one to die on.  If you wanna get your licks in go for it I guess.

This is the ### #### 9/11 first responders.  I don't give a #### about standard practices.  It's unacceptable bottom line, no if and or buts about it.

 

[parasaurolophus]

I could defend this one too- this is standard practice for congressional hearings, if they didn't run hearings this way there would simply be a lot fewer hearings which really just harms the people fighting for their noble causes who want to be heard and on camera, yadda yadda yadda.

But it's exhausting, and this particular hill isn't a great one to die on.  If you wanna get your licks in go for it I guess.

This is what i wanted to know. I have learned to never trust the headlines regarding bills but couldnt figure out how there could be so many no shows. 

 

[TobiasFunke]

This is the ### #### 9/11 first responders.  I don't give a #### about standard practices.  It's unacceptable bottom line, no if and or buts about it.

As I said, defending this would be exhausting and this particular hill isn't a great one to die on. If you are angry at members of Congress for not attending the entire hearing even though they're definitely gonna pass the requested reauthorization, that's absolutely your right.  Personally I have no real problem with them skipping portions of a hearing on this bill if they already plan to side with the advocates, although obviously my feelings depend on what they're doing with that time instead. But everyone has a right to their preferences when it comes to their elected representatives, and I'm all for more passion and engagement.

 

[TobiasFunke]

This is what i wanted to know. I have learned to never trust the headlines regarding bills but couldnt figure out how there could be so many no shows. 

I totally understand Stewart's reaction. If I'd been working hard on an issue I was passionate about for years and I showed up for a congressional hearing and was greeted with empty chairs and didn't know to expect that, I'd be angry too. I'm sure many people feel that way, they just don't have the self-assurance and clout to vocalize it.

 

[parasaurolophus]

As I said, defending this would be exhausting and this particular hill isn't a great one to die on. If you are angry at members of Congress for not attending the entire hearing even though they're definitely gonna pass the requested reauthorization, that's absolutely your right.  Personally I have no real problem with them skipping portions of a hearing on this bill if they already plan to side with the advocates, although obviously my feelings depend on what they're doing with that time instead. But everyone has a right to their preferences when it comes to their elected representatives, and I'm all for more passion and engagement.

I am even more confused now. Is it common to schedule hearings for stuff that has already been decided? Did somebody forget to tell stewart it was gonna be a yes? 

 

[TobiasFunke]

I am even more confused now. Is it common to schedule hearings for stuff that has already been decided? Did somebody forget to tell stewart it was gonna be a yes? 

I mean it's not 100% of course, anything can get hung up, and I'm just relying on media reports that this one is a sure thing. It's a reauthorization, not a new bill, so that makes it much less likely to hit a snag. But yeah, there's hearings on basically everything. There were 13 hearings/markups going on at the same time as this one just in the House.

More broadly- in my experience it's a ridiculously busy and stressful job. Constantly pulled in five different directions any time you're at the office, risking stuff like this if you let someone pull you in the wrong direction, no wasting away the day screwing around on a message board or reading up on your favorite teams or hobbies. Kinda seems miserable, to be honest. Not all of them do the job that way, but I think most do.

 

[dkp993]

I mean it's not 100% of course, anything can get hung up, and I'm just relying on media reports that this one is a sure thing. But yeah, there's hearings on basically everything. There were 13 going on at the same time as this one just in the House.

More broadly- in my experience it's a ridiculously busy and stressful job. Constantly pulled in five different directions any time you're at the office, risking stuff like this if you let someone pull you in the wrong direction, no wasting away the day screwing around on a message board or reading up on your favorite teams or hobbies. Kinda seems miserable, to be honest. Not all of them do the job that way, but I think most do.

While it's a busy job from my understanding (which in all honesty is probably at 10th grade equivalency and certainly not PHD level understanding) an overwhelming majority of their time is spent fundraising not on policy.

 

[TobiasFunke]

While it's a busy job from my understanding (which in all honesty is probably at 10th grade equivalency and certainly not PHD level understanding) an overwhelming majority of their time is spent fundraising not on policy.

I don't know about an "overwhelming majority," but yeah it's a huge amount of time. And not fun, glamorous fundraising either- lots and lots of phone calls.

 

[dkp993]

I don't know about an "overwhelming majority," but yeah it's a huge amount of time. And not fun, glamorous fundraising either- lots and lots of phone calls.

I remember hearing 70% from a former congressman but can't for the life of me remember where or how I heard it so it could very well be wrong.  And yes the banging the phones type fundraising. That speaks to the heart of the problem. To much of their time spent just trying to get re-elected, not you know, doing the job (like showing up for committee meetings for example).

 

[parasaurolophus]

I mean it's not 100% of course, anything can get hung up, and I'm just relying on media reports that this one is a sure thing. It's a reauthorization, not a new bill, so that makes it much less likely to hit a snag. But yeah, there's hearings on basically everything. There were 13 hearings/markups going on at the same time as this one just in the House.

More broadly- in my experience it's a ridiculously busy and stressful job. Constantly pulled in five different directions any time you're at the office, risking stuff like this if you let someone pull you in the wrong direction, no wasting away the day screwing around on a message board or reading up on your favorite teams or hobbies. Kinda seems miserable, to be honest. Not all of them do the job that way, but I think most do.

You had me up until that last part. I have seen way too many tweets. 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Yeah...they deserve that raise.

That was rather powerful.

 

[OrtonToOlsen]

And before this becomes an “us vs them” thing...

It’s not really clear (to me at least) exactly who should have been at that hearing but there were Dems and GOP missing.