News & Politics

Featured Posts
_Kissy_
Hardly working: Congress in session 126 days next year
by _Kissy_
December 1, 2012 at 12:25 AM

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.

113thCongress1stSession

Replies

  • 29again
    by 29again
    December 1, 2012 at 12:32 AM

    They will be with their constituents during all that time off, though, right? 

    And don't anyone laugh, I mean it!!  LOL



    So, if we do go over the cliff, they won't have much choice about it, will they?  There won't be any money to pay them, right?  And dude who said that they EARNED their pay needs a good slap upside his face, imo. 

  • erika9009
    December 1, 2012 at 1:38 AM

    compared to how much the CA legislators  actually work, this is a slave schedule.


    Now, go look at LA mayor and Democratic Convention chairman, Antonio Vilarigossa, or Tony Villar, or whatever he calls himself to get elected this week.  The LA times did a study on him and his work at city hall.............11 % of the time he worked.  The other 89% were spent doing, doing, doing???  well, no one knows, but I'm sure it had something to do with trimming the budget


  • rccmom
    by rccmom
    December 1, 2012 at 9:35 AM

     

    Quoting 29again:

    They will be with their constituents during all that time off, though, right? 

    And don't anyone laugh, I mean it!!  LOL

     

     

    So, if we do go over the cliff, they won't have much choice about it, will they?  There won't be any money to pay them, right?  And dude who said that they EARNED their pay needs a good slap upside his face, imo. 

    Oh, I am sure they will be paid, cliff or no cliff. They will make sure of that. Each time we have come up to a fiscal emergency that won't fund the military, it never involves not paying Congress either.

     

  • jcrew6
    by jcrew6
    December 1, 2012 at 12:45 PM

    The original purpose for elected officials was not a full time jobs.  I say we slash pay, benefits, etc... 

  • itsmesteph11
    December 1, 2012 at 4:30 PM

     I'm not sure that's a bad thing.  I just wish they would get something done while they are there.

  • Pema_Jampa
    December 1, 2012 at 4:39 PM

    SMH SSDD

  • GaleJ
    by GaleJ
    December 1, 2012 at 9:04 PM

    As with all things there are two sides to every story. I'm not honestly sure we can afford to have them in session more, just think what mischief they might get into if they really apply themselves.

  • Natesmom507
    December 1, 2012 at 9:33 PM

    Good, the less there in session the less they are coming up with new bills to put us in even more debt. I think they should take the whole year off.

  • Friday
    by Friday
    December 1, 2012 at 10:17 PM

    That is absolutely ridiculous, we need to fire all of them.

  • DSamuels
    December 1, 2012 at 10:38 PM

    In 2009 when the dems were the majority they were to be in session 120 days which is even less.

    2006 - 103 days



News & Politics

Active Posts in All Groups
More Active Posts
Featured Posts in All Groups
More Featured Posts
close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN