Notwithstanding that its approval rating is at historic lows — meaning that it’s never been more hated than it is now by the American public it allegedly serves (it doesn’t) — Congress has seen fit to secure for itself a pay raise to supplement the already-bloated salaries of members.
Via Washington Free Beacon (emphasis added):
Taxpayers are funding luxury housing accommodations for Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) and over 200 other members of Congress, many of whom boast net worths over $1 million.
As one of their last actions with their majority, Democrats quietly tucked a provision into internal House rules that grants lawmakers access to an optional $34,000 annual subsidy to pay for their Washington, D.C., housing and meal expenses. Taxpayers have doled out over $8,700 to pay for the democratic socialist’s lodging and meals throughout the first half of 2023, records show.
In total, 113 Democrats and 104 Republicans have taken advantage of the program, raking in a combined $1.4 million from taxpayers during the first half of 2023, House disbursement records reviewed by the Washington Free Beacon show. Recipients of these funds include at least 17 millionaire Democrats, including Rep. Katie Porter, who reported a net worth of up to $1.8 million in her latest financial disclosure, and House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D., Mass.), who boasts a net worth of up to $13.5 million.
This all sounds like a lot of socialism to me — expected, perhaps, from Democrat members from Massachusetts, but what about all 104 of the proponents of the so-called “free market” on the Republican side of the aisle?
Here’s a question: what’s the argument against paying Congress creatures the federal minimum — currently $7.25 per hour — for all of the “work” they do pleasuring lobbyists in Congress in exchange for campaign cash and future board appointments? What is the argument that these people deserve a red cent more?
Related: Chris Christie Claims He Made a ‘Great Sacrifice’ to Become a Career Politician
And why do they still collect checks during the roughly two-thirds of the year they’re not actually doing any work (unless meeting with donors counts as work)?
Via ABC News:
The House is scheduled to be in session in Washington a total of 133 days this year. The Senate will be in session about the same amount or a few days more.
But if you’re an ordinary American worker with two weeks of vacation and federal holidays off, you’re likely clocking in around 240 days a year at the office.
Of course, when lawmakers are on recess, it’s often considered a “work week” in their districts –- but they’re not getting much legislating done away from the nation’s capital. And though lawmakers often participate in constituent meetings and fundraisers, they’re not actually required to work at all. In fact, the summer break is mandated by law, though members could postpone or abridge it if they really wanted to.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member