Democratic Party Changing Congressional Schedule

[Back]

Culture Shock on Capitol Hill: House to Work 5 Days a Week (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/05/AR2006120501342.html)


Forget the minimum wage. Or outsourcing jobs overseas. The labor issue most on the minds of members of Congress yesterday was their own: They will have to work five days a week starting in January.

The horror.

Rep. Steny H. Hoyer, the Maryland Democrat who will become House majority leader and is writing the schedule for the next Congress, said members should expect longer hours than the brief week they have grown accustomed to.

"I have bad news for you," Hoyer told reporters. "Those trips you had planned in January, forget 'em. We will be working almost every day in January, starting with the 4th."

The reporters groaned. "I know, it's awful, isn't it?" Hoyer empathized.

For lawmakers, it is awful, compared with what they have come to expect. For much of this election year, the legislative week started late Tuesday and ended by Thursday afternoon -- and that was during the relatively few weeks the House wasn't in recess.

Next year, members of the House will be expected in the Capitol for votes each week by 6:30 p.m. Monday and will finish their business about 2 p.m. Friday, Hoyer said.

With the new calendar, the Democrats are trying to project a businesslike image when they take control of Congress in January. House and Senate Democratic leaders have announced an ambitious agenda for their first 100 hours and say they are adamant about scoring legislative victories they can trumpet in the 2008 campaigns.

Hoyer and other Democratic leaders say they are trying to repair the image of Congress, which was so anemic this year it could not meet a basic duty: to approve spending bills that fund government. By the time the gavel comes down on the 109th Congress on Friday, members will have worked a total of 103 days. That's seven days fewer than the infamous "Do-Nothing Congress" of 1948.

---------------------------------------------------

I knew those guys up on the Hill took a lot of time off during the year, but I didn’t know they worked Tuesdays thru Thursdays on top of that. Fuck them. I’ve been busting my ass 40+ a week most of my life with a third of my wages going to pay for this country. This isn’t enough of a change IMO.

They always vote for their own pay raises but not to up the minimum wage.

[TheEschaton]

So they are EXPECTED TO SHOW UP TO VOTE on Monday at 6:30 PM???

Damn, it's hard to be a Congressman. WTF are they gonna do for that extra 12 hours in Washington between MOnday evening and Tuesday morning?

Or that extra 18 from Thursday to Friday?

-TheE-

[Gan]

GOD FORBID A POLITICIAN ACTUALLY HAVING TO LOOK LIKE THEY ARE WORKING FOR A LIVING.

[Sean]

Man 6:30 on Monday is scheduled dinner time with the mistress have a heart.

[Parkbandit]

They always vote for their own pay raises but not to up the minimum wage.

Hope is on the way Backlash.. as it is on their agenda for the first 100 hours. Hang in there.

[Seran]

They'll be working longer hours, but there is no mention of a pay raise. Coming from the Democrats, I'm absolutely shocked they're willing to work for their wages.

If only they enforce the same work ethic on all of their constituents who feel their only civic duty is to collect a paycheck without doing any work.

[TheEschaton]

Uhhh, Clinton reformed welfare pretty solidly. It's much harder to "milk" the system. Clinton actually did something, while Reagan, who truly opposed the program, ranted about "welfare queens" to solidify his base.

-TheE-

[Daniel]

I loathe politics so fucking much.

[Drew]

Uhhh, Clinton reformed welfare pretty solidly. It's much harder to "milk" the system. Clinton actually did something, while Reagan, who truly opposed the program, ranted about "welfare queens" to solidify his base.

-TheE-



Yep it was Clinton who did that and not Gingrich.

[Drew]

I loathe politics so fucking much.


Probably the smartest thing I've ever heard you say.

[Keller]

They'll be working longer hours, but there is no mention of a pay raise. Coming from the Democrats, I'm absolutely shocked they're willing to work for their wages.

If only they enforce the same work ethic on all of their constituents who feel their only civic duty is to collect a paycheck without doing any work.


I'd be surprised if you knew shit about politics except that your dad voted for George W. Bush.

Check back in with us when you have a head on your shoulders kid.

[Jorddyn]

Coming from the Democrats, I'm absolutely shocked they're willing to work for their wages.

If only they enforce the same work ethic on all of their constituents who feel their only civic duty is to collect a paycheck without doing any work.

I can't even imagine how bad your mouth tastes after spewing that load of shit.

[Artha]

The truth has a conservative bias?

[TheEschaton]

The whole myth of people mooching off the system has a conservative bias. In most cases it is outright false, in the worst of cases, an exaggeration.

-TheE-

[Daniel]

Probably the smartest thing I've ever heard you say.

What can I say?

I live for the validation of someone that has never said anything constructive.

[Parkbandit]

Yep it was Clinton who did that and not Gingrich.

LOL

How dare you try and take credit from Clinton! HE WUZ PRES!!

Couldn't possibly have anything to do with the Contract of America.. no way.

That's like saying Clinton was responsible for the economic boom of the '90's... just as silly a notion.

[Parkbandit]

The whole myth of people mooching off the system has a conservative bias. In most cases it is outright false, in the worst of cases, an exaggeration.

-TheE-

There are plenty of documented cases of people mooching off the system. Problem with you is.. you think everyone is honest and will do the right thing.

[Skirmisher]

Probably the smartest thing I've ever heard you say.

Yer so silly.

[ElanthianSiren]

There are plenty of documented cases of people mooching off the system. Problem with you is.. you think everyone is honest and will do the right thing.

Greater good. Plenty of cases is not a majority of cases. If welfare goes toward getting more parents through college to work in higher paying jobs to create a more positive example for their children, but there are four or five deadbeats for every 100 successes, you know what? Who gives a shit? You, obviously.

The only way to make a bigger impact is to put in longer hours. I can't believe current Congress has been getting away with a two day week though.

-M

[Sean of the Thread]

Yer so silly.

So is thinking that 6.7 billion people farting in unison changes the climate.

[Skirmisher]

So is thinking that 6.7 billion people farting in unison changes the climate.

That was dinosaurs silly.

[xtc]

The whole myth of people mooching off the system has a conservative bias. In most cases it is outright false, in the worst of cases, an exaggeration.

-TheE-

People do mooch off the system and laziness does exist. It isn't false, it exists in spades and in many cases people are mooching off multiple systems.

[Parkbandit]

Greater good. Plenty of cases is not a majority of cases. If welfare goes toward getting more parents through college to work in higher paying jobs to create a more positive example for their children, but there are four or five deadbeats for every 100 successes, you know what? Who gives a shit? You, obviously.

The only way to make a bigger impact is to put in longer hours. I can't believe current Congress has been getting away with a two day week though.

-M


And you pulled that 4-5 out of 100 number from where? Your ass?

Let me try....

For every 100 cases, 51 are for deadbeats.

OMG! Making shit up is FUN! FUN FOR THE WHOLE FAMILY!!!!!

And let's just say you are correct.. 5% of all welfare claims are fraudulent. That cost us 21.7 BILLION dollars in 2000.

Yea, I obviously give a shit.

[Parkbandit]

People do mooch off the system and laziness does exist. It isn't false, it exists in spades and in many cases people are mooching off multiple systems.


Um, according to our expert in the field, it's only 4-5%

thanks.

[Bartlett]

I used to work at a major food retailer in the Loss Prevention Dept. One of the biggest days for theft was the 5th of the Month. This was also the day that EBT (food stamps) cards were automatically refilled. In the most extreme cases, people were shoplifting non-food items and spending their entire month's allowance on lobsters and other fine foods in the same sitting. Watching them leave my office to go to their car, discovering it to be a luxury SUV of some kind. That is a broken system. Sure there are people who need a push in the right direction, but in my admittedly limited experience I have unfortunately witnessed more people indulging themselves on my paycheck while I ate pasta and hamburg. We also have the WIC program in NH, which I thought was awesome. It provides enough food to give your family the necessary nourishment, but the catch is that it defines the items you can buy. This system is almost unabuseable as far as I saw, save for the folks who got the free formula and traded it with drug dealers or shady corner stores, the system works. The American dream is to get everything for nothing. Create a system meant to help those in NEED, but can be abused by those in WANT and you will find the latter much more prevalent in a society without right and wrong.

[ElanthianSiren]

And you pulled that 4-5 out of 100 number from where? Your ass?

Let me try....

For every 100 cases, 51 are for deadbeats.

OMG! Making shit up is FUN! FUN FOR THE WHOLE FAMILY!!!!!

And let's just say you are correct.. 5% of all welfare claims are fraudulent. That cost us 21.7 BILLION dollars in 2000.

Yea, I obviously give a shit.

Hence the word if used in the post. It wasn't a fact, or I would have quoted a source. It was more to say that I don't care if people are cheating the system; I wouldn't cut the nose of the people it also legitimately helps because some ass decides to abuse it. Would you?

There are all kinds of systems people abuse; the question to conservatives who'd like to do away with welfare NOW NOW NOW! is what would you put in its place? I hear lots of whining, no problem solving.

-M

[Parkbandit]

Hence the word if used in the post. It wasn't a fact, or I would have quoted a source. It was more to say that I don't care if people are cheating the system; I wouldn't cut the nose of the people it also legitimately helps because some ass decides to abuse it. Would you?

There are all kinds of systems people abuse; the question to conservatives who'd like to do away with welfare NOW NOW NOW! is what would you put in its place? I hear lots of whining, no problem solving.

-M

I don't think there is one conservative out there worth a shit that says to do away with the entire Welfare system. There are certain people in our society we have a responsibility to help... be it they are not mentally or physically able to work or help themselves. There are people who temporarily need aid. Those are the individuals we should be helping... not just any lazy fuck who knows how to beat the system.

Personally, the least effective entity to get anything done is the US Government. We should turn programs such as Welfare over to a private company to manage. We would save billions.

[Keller]

Turn welfare over to a private company?

Are you joking?

I understand there are problems w/ welfare, but a privatizing welfare is NOT an option. First, where will they get their revenue? Second, how will their revenue be decided? If it's based on the number of recipients, it's bad either way. If they are given an incentive to have lower recipients, they will exclude every possible recipient they can under the law. This will ensure those people you said we're obliged to help will not get help. If they're budget is increased for more recipients, it will cost us a fortune.

In both situations the gov't will be forced to pay for someone to oversee the company to catch the over/under-issuing of welfare recipients. There is NO way we can privatize welfare without utter disaster.

[Parkbandit]

Turn welfare over to a private company?

Are you joking?

I understand there are problems w/ welfare, but a privatizing welfare is NOT an option. First, where will they get their revenue? Second, how will their revenue be decided? If it's based on the number of recipients, it's bad either way. If they are given an incentive to have lower recipients, they will exclude every possible recipient they can under the law. This will ensure those people you said we're obliged to help will not get help. If they're budget is increased for more recipients, it will cost us a fortune.

In both situations the gov't will be forced to pay for someone to oversee the company to catch the over/under-issuing of welfare recipients. There is NO way we can privatize welfare without utter disaster.

Government is by far the least productive and worst run of any business model. It's not their money, so what the fuck do they care if Billy Jones from Omaha, NE works or not or deserves the welfare check he's been receiving for the past few years.

Notice how I said "manage" welfare. They would get their money the same place our current welfare department gets theirs. The current system and department is a joke. Do you have any idea how much money the government gives out to these free handout programs? Look at the fraud in Katrina!

[TheEschaton]

Personally, the least effective entity to get anything done is the US Government. We should turn programs such as Welfare over to a private company to manage. We would save billions.

Like Florida gave the management of the felon rolls in 2000 to a private company? That worked out real well.

-TheE-