A Fine Line Between Stupid And Clever

Now With Electrolytes!

Democrats Plan a Shorter Workweek

Posted by bmac on October 30, 2007

UPDATE: HEADLINE ON DRUDGE 10/30

HOUSE IN A MESS

Perfect time to bring up shorter workweeks!

Democrats! Working for you! At least four days a week!

The House majority leader, Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, told fellow Democrats this week that the House would not be in session next year on Fridays, except in June for work on appropriations bills.

Explaining that decision to reporters, Mr. Hoyer said, “I do intend to have more time for members to work in their districts and to be close to their families.”

Read the whole thing.

Yeah, those poor overworked slaves to public service. Hell, why not take a year off? Nothing highlights how useless these “jobs” are as when a Senator runs for President. They’re basically persona non grata for two years, and no one seems to notice. How is it that Barack Obama, Hillary, Kucinich, etc, are able to perform their Senatorial duties while campaigning 24/7 for President? Why is this never questioned? Republicans are just as guilty, being useless is truly non-partisan.

We pay these tools $165,200 a year. Although approval for Congress is rock bottom, do you think they care? Why should they? Most will be re-elected no matter what, even if their approval ratings hit single digits. The reality is, Americans don’t participate much in the electoral process, and I myself was guilty of this for most of my life, so I speak from experience. Most people I know don’t vote, and if they do, vote on name recognition or party affiliation only. Unless your Senator or Congressman gets caught with an underage girl or boy, or in an airport bathroom soliciting sex, chances are, you have no idea what they’ve been up to. Our public servants know this, and exploit it, and we let them. That’s the system.  It’s broken. How do we fix it?

  

2 Responses to “Democrats Plan a Shorter Workweek”

  1. Misanthropic Scott said

    Do you want a way to fix it in theory or in actual practice?

    In theory, I like the idea of 1) publicly financed campaigns with no money from any other source. 2) End all lobbying. Then 3) tie their salaries to a multiple of the median household income.

    This last bit, after taking away all other sources of soft money, would essentially put them on commission. Want a raise? Raise the median household income.

    And, don’t forget, as it currently stands, they get automatic cost of living increases without that pesky act of voting themselves a raise that they were formally required to do.

  2. bmac said

    That sounds like a good start to me. Although I have no clue how to implement these things. Any ideas?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: