Don't be fooled by those "I'm saving the taxpayers money by sleeping in my office" Congressmen

[EffieBlack]

They aren't saving the taxpayers a dime - in fact, they're COSTING the taxpayers money. But they're saving THEMSELVES a whole heap of cash by bunking in their offices.

These people are taking advantage of the public's assumption that the taxpayers pay Members' living expenses in Washington and, therefore, if they cut back on their costs, the taxpayers benefit.

Wrong.

Taxpayers do NOT pay for the Members' living expenses. Only the cost of travel back and forth to their districts is paid for out of government coffers. Their other expenses - a D.C. apartment or house, food, utilities, etc. - are paid for by the Member themselves and are not reimbursed. As we know, it's not cheap to live in DC. Even a tiny apartment on or near Capitol Hill can cost upward of $1,000 per month. And they can't save money by living out in the boondocks since, because they're always subject to the call of the Chair (i.e., can be called in to vote at any hour of the day when they're in session) they need to be within 15 or 20 minutes of the Capitol.

So a Member bunking in his office, using the Capitol showers, burning Capitol electricity, etc. is really saving himself a nice chunk of change.

It's not easy financially for the Members who have to maintain two homes out of their own pockets. But most Members see this as a necessary expense of doing the job and just suck it up. But lately, a few of them have decided to mooch off of the taxpayers and live in their offices rather than paying their own living expenses that most Members of Congress do without complaint.

This isn't about saving the taxpayers money or demonstrating an admirable frugality. It's about using government resources to offset the costs of the career and lifestyle they themselves chose to pursue.

I call bull on it.

[SDuderstadt]

1. Should people of modest means...

not be able to serve in Congress?

[EffieBlack]

6. This has nothing to do with whether they are of modest means or not

If they were claiming they were doing this because they just can't afford to live in Washington otherwise, that would be one thing. But they are trying to sell this to their constituents as if it's some kind of benefit they're conferring on THEM, which is crap.

Many, many Members of VERY modest means manage to make do. They room together, they rent rooms in someone's home, etc.

Members of Congress make more than $170,000 a year, by the way - they're not exactly paupers.

[Freddie Stubbs]

28. Who specifically said that they were saving the taxpayers money by doing this?

[sad sally]

65. While the number probably changed some with the 2010 elections,

In 2009 there were 261 out of the 535 members who were millionaires; 55 members had a wealth of $10 million or more; the average income of Members of Congress was $765,101; the average income of Senators was $2.38 million; the richest is Congressman Isa with wealth $303.5 million.

So, boo hoo hoo. (makes it crystal clear why they don't want taxes raised on the wealthy - it's them!)

[sharp_stick]

8. A congressman makes what

about $170,000? The assholes can afford an apartment. They shouldn't be squatting in the Capitol plain and simple.

[EffieBlack]

11. I wouldn't have a huge problem with it if they REALLY needed to do it

But this is really mostly for show. They're trying to prove how "frugal" they are by mooching off of the taxpayers.

[sharp_stick]

13. Of course it's for show

these idiots thrive on doing things for show. I'd like to make them take the train in to work every day just like millions of other people.

If I ever see a Republican lawmaker actually do something fiscally responsible and mean it, I'll eat my hat.

[Freddie Stubbs]

31. Who specifically said that they were saving the taxpayers money by doing this?

[Sheepshank]

35. Chaffetz n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

39. Cool. Do you have a link where he said that?

[Sheepshank]

48. He told a campaign worker who is an ex-co worker

she was touting his high ethics *roll eyes*

[jeff47]

38. If that was their only home, sure.

But your Congresscritter still has their house back in their district. And congresscritters tend not to have little houses back home.

[LiberalFighter]

45. If they tend not to have little houses back home

then they would probably more than likely able to afford living in DC. Many possibly already have their mortgage paid off. Or have enough stashed away where money is not an issue.

[eridani]

42. Yes, but they already have one (or a house) back where they came from

Why would they be able to afford a second one in an expensive city?

[AlinPA]

50. Plus many of them get money from lobbyists.

[karynnj]

53. I think the lobbyists give the money to re-election funds - not directly

which would be illegal.

[AlinPA]

56. I'm referring to the brown envelopes under the fancy restaurant tables. nt

[Hippo_Tron]

66. Yea, it's called bribery and Duke Cunningham went to prison for it

Congresscritters can cash in big on good paying lobbying jobs AFTER they are out of office, but while they are in office they are limited in the ways that they can make money.

[AngryAmish]

59. I would be eating a lot of savings if I did that

Between my house, tuition, club dues (it adds up) and an apartment I could not make it on $170k a year. And I have some money in the bank.

[CreekDog]

20. George Miller, Chuck Schumer and Leon Panetta rented a DC townhouse --they did it

even while maintaining a house in the pricey Bay Area.

[CBHagman]

43. The Dem group house lives, last I heard.

The housemates include Rep. George Miller (CA), Rep. Bill Delahunt (MA), Senator Chuck Schumer (NY), and Senator Dick Durbin (IL).

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/18/garden/18roomies.html

[Inuca]

63. Panetta? I thought that the 3rd

one was Dick Durbin.

[EC]

24. Ron Johnson the millionaire

is doing this...but the ones without money should be paying a charge for room and board at the very least.

[WhiteTara]

29. wouldn't that DC rent be tax deductible?

As a cost of doing business? Also, we pay them $160,000 a year with many percs...shouldn't that be sufficient to pay for their rent?

[Saturday]

2. I absolutely agree with you.

I'm concerned about the safety of it also. One Congressman admitted to using a crock pot in a closet that he had made into a mini kitchen. How safe is that?

[EffieBlack]

10. Great quote from Melanie Sloan

“In any event, it brings discredit upon the House for members of Congress to sleep in House offices, making it more difficult for housekeeping, maintenance and construction crews to do their jobs. And really, who wants to run into a member of Congress in need of a shower wandering the halls in sweats or a robe?”

[Freddie Stubbs]

32. Who specifically said that they were saving the taxpayers money by doing this?

[Kingofalldems]

37. Quit badgering DU members

Maybe you could find something productive to do.

[Freddie Stubbs]

41. Do you have information on who specifically said that they were saving the taxpayers money by

doing this?

If not, you post is not particularly helpful.

[tallahasseedem]

57. Not going to happen...

BTW, Nationals stink! ;) Just kidding (maybe)...I'm still hurt that my man Werth left!

[Bravo Zulu]

71. Or nekkid!

[Pisces]

3. They are not all rich. I don't mind that they sleep in their offices.

[sharp_stick]

9. They make about $170,000

that's plenty to cover a studio apartment, even in DC. Maybe they should move a little further out so they can ride the train with the "regular people".

Maybe they can room together like I had to do through Grad School.

[Pisces]

22. Many do room together. 170k would be plenty for you, you have no idea what these

people are obligated to back home ie. mtgs, school for children, etc. 170k is not making them rich. Sharing a place in DC is still very expensive. If living out of their office makes it easier for a more
common man to get elected so be it.

[Gormy Cuss]

30. >170K is enough for any of them.

The "common man" argument sounds good, but that commoner has low costs in his or her home district or else wouldn't qualify as a commoner. That Congressional salary represents a steep increase in income for a commoner.

At the other end of the spectrum, many member of Congress are wealthy to begin with and can certainly afford housing in the District.

The ones hurt by the move to Congress are the well paid but not wealthy individuals who are taking a salary cut, but even they have options like reducing their expenses in the home district (trading down on housing, for example.) Those aren't the "common man."

[jeff47]

40. Trading down on housing is often not possible

With the degree of gerrymandering of districts, it can be very difficult to find an inexpensive house that's still in their district. The one I grew up in did not include any "low income" areas so that it could remain a solidly Republican district.

[Gormy Cuss]

44. Sure, but there would be other ways to trim expenses.

Remember too that trading down doesn't mean moving to a low income area. Unless the MOC already lives in the cheapest corner of the district chances are good that there's a way to reduce housing costs if it becomes necessary and stay in the district. The truth of the matter is that it unlikely that an MOC in such district isn't able to float the costs for two residences, especially if they share space in DC.

The MOCs who are living in their offices aren't doing it because they have to, they're doing it to prove a point, whether that be austerity or disconnection from the DC scene.

[CreekDog]

61. our congresspeople afford it and we're in the most expensive real estate market in the USA

:shrug:

[rfranklin]

4. Maybe low cost housing could be found for them...

They could see how the other half lives.

[yesphan]

5. Good point

Perhaps a dormitory for the freshmen congress critters.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

46. They can move to an apartment in SW DC and shop at the Safeway...

asking for receipts. The other half lives mere blocks away.

[Freddie Stubbs]

7. Who specifically said that they were saving the taxpayers money by doing this?

[Raine1967]

26. I posted a WaPo article Down-thread. n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

27. I read it. Not one Congressman claimed they were sleeping in thier office to save taxpayers' money

[xchrom]

12. recommend

[no_hypocrisy]

14. Well, at least they aren't living at The Fellowship/Family Compound.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fellowship_(Christian_organization)

http://jeffsharlet.com/content/about-the-family/

http://jeffsharlet.com/content/excerpt-from-the-family/

http://jeffsharlet.com/content/reviews-of-the-family/

[Mass]

15. Did a congressman actually say that?

I am sure some idiot on Fox or the Limbaugh radio show has said that at some point, and you're right, it is pure BS. But do you have an example of a congressman saying that.

[Kingofalldems]

16. K and R

We are now paying for their housing, including showers AND the cleanup staff. Who would dare defend these people?

[Yavin4]

17. Isn't There Some Kind of Weird House on K Street?

where all kinds of strange things happen.

[Raine1967]

18. It's on C-Street. eom

[Raine1967]

19. Who specifically said this?

I think it would be prudent to know, lest this become a strawman argument. Setting up a false premise and then arguing for -- or against -- it.

That said, I think 174,000 salary should be more than enough to get a small apartment in or around DC. here are the salaries: http://www.thecapitol.net/FAQ/payandperqs.htm

specifically: WHAT Congress critter sleeps in his/her office?

[Raine1967]

21. Is this the article? If yes, the OP is spot on.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/14/AR2011021406723.html

[Raine1967]

23. DC taxpayers pay for these idiots' sewage

everytime they flush their toilets.

And DC residents don't have voting rights in congress.

[zipplewrath]

25. Not sure of your facts here

" And they can't save money by living out in the boondocks since, because they're always subject to the call of the Chair (i.e., can be called in to vote at any hour of the day when they're in session) they need to be within 15 or 20 minutes of the Capitol."

Biden lived at his home in Delware, and took the train each day. I'd suspect almost anyone else could live outside of DC and still commute. People miss role calls all the time.

[EffieBlack]

33. He was a rarity - and the Senate operates differently

Most House members try to live very close to the Capitol.

[athena]

34. They should not be allowed to live in their office.

Most of us don't have that luxury.

When I was a grad student, living in one's office was not allowed. It was considered a fire hazard (at least, that was the reason given). You could pull all-nighters or work at night instead of during the day, but if they discovered that you were actually living in your office, there would be consequences. Housing was extremely expensive on a grad student's budget, but the university did not allow grad students to try to save money by sleeping in their office space.

Regardless of how expensive housing may be, the vast majority of us don't have the option to save money by living in our office. It's extremely obnoxious of these people to brag on TV about how they live in their office -- especially considering that they are using public funding to save themselves money on rent and electricity, as the OP points out.

[EffieBlack]

36. Exactly - well said!

They are posturing as if they are proving they are "one of us" when, in fact, this behavior reeks of elitist self-entitlement.

[yellowcanine]

54. Most employers do not allow employees to live in the workplace. With good reason.

It is an extra cost to the employer, creates all kind of liability issues and jeopardizes insurance coverage, creates security problems, and is a violation of zoning laws in many jurisdictions. Not to mention the creepiness factor when a female employee comes into the office in the morning and finds the congress critter running around in his underwear.

[denem]

47. I'm saving the taxpayers TWICE the money by sleeping with a Staffer

in my Office,

[AlinPA]

49. it's for theater; "Look at me, sleeping in my office because I don't have enough money" Bastards

make 170K plus many of them get a lot of money in those brown envelopes passed under the table at the fancy DC restaurants.

[Pisces]

60. Someone did it for 7 years. That is some method acting skills. They are saving money, it has been

has been allowed forever and now we want to make a stink about it because of so many incoming Republican freshmen??? There are many things to be outraged over and this should be low on the
list.

[EffieBlack]

64. I don't think people had a problem with a few members sleeping in their offices

when they just did it and didn't try to get political mileage out of it.

But this new crop of incoming Members who are boasting and bragging about how sleeping in their offices somehow proves how down-to-earth and fiscally responsible they are - when it really is just a sign of Congressional privilege - has brought on the stink themselves.

I'm not outraged at all, by the way. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy.

[Bunny]

51. If this is such a problem, why don't they build a old-style college dormitory

for congress people to live in? Make the freshmen Reps wear dinks, too.

[boppers]

69. They already have dorm rooms.

It's called an "office", though.

I see no need to get them a few more.

[yellowcanine]

52. Also it stands to reason that these guys cut and run for their districts at the drop of a hat.

So the public gets to pay for more flights to and from the district than if they had a proper place to live in DC. Why don't they just shack up with their right wing buddies at the C street Jesus Frat House?

[chowhound]

55. SOCIALISM!!!

[lame54]

58. Ok - they sleep there - do they ever plan to work there?

[jtown1123]

62. They are too dumb to realize 1200 rent is incredible affordable when you make 175,00 a year...morons

[Hippo_Tron]

67. Honestly, I don't think this is a big deal

Yes it's mostly a dog and pony show. I think most of these people are going to get an apartment within the next few months. Some of the Virginia/Maryland/Delaware reps can probably get away with it by only doing it a couple nights a week. Living in your office, no matter how nice it is, becomes a serious drag at some point.

[Inuca]

74. I agree

If they are willing to put up with the discomfort, let them do it. The fact that they consume extra electricity, etc., it's less than peanuts.

[Lyric]

68. I agree with you here.

There are VERY few Congresspeople who have no other source of income than their Congressional paychecks. Most of them have investments and (legal or not) side projects that provide plenty of extra cash. And most of the Congresspeople who live in their offices are only doing it so that they can crow about it and give themselves extra credit with the voters for "sacrificing to save taxpayer money", when in fact the opposite is true: they are costing us MORE because WE are absorbing a great big chunk of their living expenses.

I think that if there are any Congresspeople who claim that they truly CANNOT afford their own housing, then perhaps they should be given housing assistance--and also subjected to some of the experiences that they force upon others who need similar assistance. After all, they must not be managing their finances very well if they make $170k a year and can't even afford a bedroom in a shared apartment. There must be some personal flaw or fault at the root of the problem. They need a nice, healthy dose of Personal Responsibility, brought to them courtesy of the nearest public assistance office. Some key experiences for them would include:

--Mandatory budget counseling with a snide "financial associate". Make sure that this associate impresses upon them frequently (and with great vigor) that all of their problems would float away if only they weren't such deficient, disappointing individuals.

--An in-depth background check, including access to all of their private financial records, bank accounts, employment histories, medical histories, records of the $30 that Mom loaned to them that one time, and lurid details about their love life and living circumstances, so that they can be treated like irresponsible children who ought to have KNOWN better than to live so irresponsibly (a.k.a., with Less Than Perfect Omniscience and Virtue). Inform them that you expect a full "change report" every single time they receive ANY money in excess of $25 for any reason, and that if they fail to report this change quickly, they'll face legal and/or financial consequences. Since we seem to expect perfection from our civilian welfare recipients, Congressional ones should be treated no differently.

--Regular substance abuse testing. Let them wait two hours in line to pee in a cup in a bathroom with no door, and while they wait, they can read some of the wonderful pamphlets that our government provides for people who just can't afford to make it on their own. Some example titles might be, "Personal Hygiene: Give it a Try for Once and You Might Get a Job", or perhaps the ever-popular "Manipulate Someone into Marrying You and Get Off the Dole!".

--ABOVE ALL, make sure that you constantly assure them that they are lower than dirt, that their own personal faults are the SOLE cause of their circumstances, and that while we might deign to give them some trifling amount of help, it's given GRUDGINGLY. Very, VERY grudgingly--and with much distaste. And only for a short period of time. Don't want them to become "dependent", after all.

[quakerboy]

70. Has anyone pointed out to them that this is "socialized housing"?

I gotta be honest, I am less than upset by it. The cleaning/construction/tax issues seem relatively minor to me. I am a bit bothered by the idea that of 3 rooms assigned to them, they may be wasting one on personal living space rather than official business.

That said, I am in favor of socialized housing for all our reps(I favor providing the option of socialized housing to most everyone, so it makes sense I would be for it for them as well). Lets build a modest apartment building for them somewhere very near their workspace. I see this being a good thing. First, they have to deal with each other as neighbors. Might do a bit for civility, or it might induce them to spend less time in session and more at home. Either way, I think we win as a country. Second, if its an official building, we get to have a log of who came a-visitin whom. Plus we get to remove any excuse the slimes may have to live in buildings owned by "the family" and other negative influences.

The implication that they were doing it to be frugal and show off their financial street cred was always a ridiculous argument. that hasn't changed.

[malletgirl02]

72. DC is expensive excuse

One thing I don't get is why none of these congresspeople don't do anything to make housing more affordable in DC for all people instead of living in their office. most people make a lot less than they do, but are not allowed to live in my office. I can't sleep in my office. I have to leave the building by 7:00 PM.

[greymattermom]

73. free food?

Don't they get most of their food from various dinners and receptions? Why not share a 3 bedroom house or apartment among 6 of them, they have another place in their home districts.