What is a personal expense when you are traveling to DC and have a big travel allowance?
The point is that even though they can not cover “personal expenses” with the MRA, that is a significant perk to the job on top of the salary that will have financial value to them. It’s offsetting daily expenses that we would incur, and allowing them to spend money on “their office” with a lot of discretion.
I mean sure, they have free access to a nice home in DC 365 days a year that they can use for either work or personal purposes and they can share that with their families and friends. I don’t have that. I might go to DC for pleasure more than I do now if I had a free place to stay while I’m there.
When my company hires out of town consultants they stay in a nice hotel downtown that’s walking distance to restaurants, museums, arts venues and sports arenas. That’s kind of fun. I’d have to fight traffic and drive and pay to park.
But these folks are also away from their families. They’re missing parties and anniversaries and hugs and random conversations and… life.
We should probably take a moment to celebrate that PHRMA lost its $30 million bribe against Part D pricing last year. Just as the NRA lost its bribe on congressmen who have been in their pockets for years now.
I’m still a bit surprised that either happened. Maybe the deep-state secretly poisoned all the lobbyists.
Interesting how transparency declined in 2017…
Congress usually gets the month of August off, along with many weeklong breaks throughout the year. I am sure they are working their home district during many of those breaks, but they are getting back to family. The 32 round trip allowance should get them home any weekend they want for a special event. Given the calendar, there may not be many weekends they do not get back home, at least for the 80% of them that are on the eastern half of the US.
I would not trade my current gig for that, but in no way does the 174K salary represent what they are getting out of it.
1 Like
Is that “nice home” in DC a bed in their office? I’ve read about congresspeople sleeping in their offices to avoid renting, or getting roommates to share the cost, maybe you haven’t.
You think they’ve been getting a per diem when they are in DC. The first article expressly says that isn’t true.
Now, those two articles are both from 2018. In 2017 outgoing Jason Chaffetz proposed a housing allowance.
Of course, my belief is based on things I’ve read over the years. Maybe you are so tuned in that you caught a couple stories that ran about three weeks ago that I missed regarding new rules for 2023.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/12/us/politics/congress-pay-raise.html
The NYT story wording suggests a per diem:
could amount to a subsidy of about $34,000 per member this year, according to an estimate based on current government reimbursement rates.
I don’t know if Bloomberg says more, I don’t subscribe to it.
I wonder if anyone has standing to challenge that as a potential violation of the 27th Amendment.
Good point. According to the article, this passed after the election.
This is a “rule”, not a “law”, but would the SC care about those words?
I imagine, given the track the SCOTUS has taken with the past couple of appointments, they’d read the 27th literally, and make the distinction between “rule” and “law”.
However, it wasn’t that long ago that Roberts wrote or supported some rather pragmatic opinions…
If someone did file suit over the rule, I doubt they’d win. Even if they did win, Congress could do an end-run by passing the rule to take effect with the subsequent Congress.
I’m not necessarily opposed to Senators and Representatives having a per-diem, but I do wonder if it wouldn’t be more cost-effective to build them a nice dorm near Capitol Hill, rather than contribute to the local real estate bubble…and I do object to the notion that there aren’t any real checks on Congress’ ability to vote itself more money.
“Dems and GOP’s living together…MASS HYSTERIA!!!”
The government could reclaim the old Post Office (the one that was turned into a Trump hotel), convert it to Congressional dorms, and rename it “The Thunderdome”.
1 Like
That’s an interesting idea, assuming “dorm” means you get a 250 sq ft room, showers down the hall, and a “bus your own tray” cafeteria. I’d even give them the luxury of single rooms. Seems better than sleeping in the office.
Dude, it was right there.
1 Like
I’d even be OK with the dorm being more-or-less equivalent to a modest 3-star urban hotel catering to business travelers on limited expense accounts: single rooms with private baths, mini-fridges, and maybe a microwave. Someplace where they can comfortably get a good night’s rest, chat with spouse and possibly kids at home, maybe do a little bit of late-night work…but not someplace rising to the level of a second home or even a pied-à-terre.
If they feel they need more than the “dorm”… they’re free to spend their own money, rather than my tax dollars / incurring more national debt.
Yeah. I have to say that you have the better idea.
If it’s structured as a non-taxable reimbursement rather than compensation I wouldn’t think so.
LOL
We can’t even get them to cease insider trading for members. Perhaps they should get funding for housing based on an explicit tax levied in their state/ district. Let ''em explain their need to the voters.
1 Like
Does no one remember Alpha House?
Imagine having a bureaucracy with the power to approve the best selling pharmaceuticals of all time or assign multi-billion dollar defense contracts. It doesn’t matter how much you pay the bureaucrats when they wield the financial power that many men crave. They will be pressured by others, and not even necessarily with bribes.
1 Like
Oh I think the money matters. These guys aren’t billionaires.
https://www.pfizer.com/people/leadership/board_of_directors/scott_gottlieb-md