Hardly working: Congress in session 126 days next year

[teko]

Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor released the new House calendar for the 113th Congress on Friday, and if you thought the 112th Congress was unproductive—just wait.
In 2013, the House will be in session for a grand total of 126 days. Congress will spend roughly two-thirds of the year not working. In January, Congress will be in session for eight days—which, compared to August where they will be in session for two days, is considered a “full month.” June will be Congress’ busiest month with 16 whole days of work.
If only we could all give ourselves 239 days off every year.

http://tv.msnbc.com/2012/11/30/hardly-working-congress-in-session-126-days-next-year/

[MrsPincince]

AMEN!

[brice1967]

There are 365 days a year.  With the kind of money these chumps are being paid, 256 (minimum) is adequate in DC.  That gives them nearly 100 other days to be "home" talking with the people they "represent".

They are making plenty of money that they can afford flying the wife and kids up for a few long weekends....  It is enough, and with only 126 days in session, it explains why $hit doesn't get handled.  They spend half of that 126 coming up with half baked ideas and the other half pointing fingers and laying blame.  It $ucks... they can do better and they can do more.

With today's technology and as big as some of these people's staffs are, there is no reason they can't "talk with the people they represent" and get things done in DC.

[specialmom]

Teko, they don't WORK 126 days, that is how long they are in session.  Time spent in the office is working.  And this is not exclusive to congress but is the same for the most part for the senate.  

Here is an interesting article.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2011/06/20/no-place-like-offices-for-house-members.html

This article brought up something intersting to me.  I know that congressmen are not moving their families to Washington like they used to---  and they come in, do their work and leave.  This article talks about days in the past in which congressmen all socialized together, had kids in school together, etc.  The things that helps to build relationships.  This article links that lack of contact to less bipartisonship.  Kind of interesting and does make sense.  

If they have no district office time and are performing NO duties at all on the other days of the year, then yes.  126 days is a problem for me too.   I am giving them the benefit of the doubt that they are working in their district offices much of the other time.  

[teko]

Here we go.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congresspay.htm

[teko]

I did however find this while on my quest for an answer to my question, no it doesnt answer my question but sure highlights just one more problem with our money and the way it is spent. This one is just texas, check it out.

http://www.texaswatchdog.org/2012/07/texas-members-of-congress-dip-once-twice-three-times/1343256806.story

[teko]

Interesting conversation! I have not researched this so maybe some of you might have the answers but Im gonna think aloud for just a second and it may or may not make any sense. If Congress works 126 days next year (we will just use that one calender for the sake of this conversation), dont we pay them something like 172 thous a year (im guessing its in that range somewhere), full medical benefits, retirement etc. And as sm so wisely stated, they go home to their states and work for their constituents when not in washington, which I agree, that makes sense to me. But, are they getting paid by the states too for their jobs there or is that included in that 172,000 a year they get for that 126 days of attending washington business? Because to me, if we are paying them for simply that 126 days with all those perks and still nothing is getting done, its time to hit the streets, imo. Anybody know?