How do you feel about Chaffetz $2500 housing for Congress?

1. 67

   ptosisposted 6 years ago

   Chaffetz proposes $2500 housing stipend for members of Congress.
   
   The average salary for "washington, dc" ranges from approximately $11.85 per hour for Receptionist to $13.60 per hour. An hourly rate of $13.60 equates to a weekly pay of $544, monthly pay of $2,357, and an annual salary of $28,288.
   
   The current salary (2016) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $174,000 per year.
   
   Members of Congress are already provided with an annual allowance intended to defray expenses related carrying out their congressional duties, including "official office expenses, including staff, mail, travel between a Member's district or state and Washington, DC, and other goods and services.
   
   Members are allowed to deduct up to $3,000 a year from their federal income tax for living expenses while they are away from their home states or congressional districts.
   
   So, what would you like to say to Chaffetz about his proposal?
   
   
   

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Live to Learnposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I think they should build dormitories that the Congress people have to live in. I think they should be double bed rooms where one bed is filled by a Democrat and one by a Republican. Independents and Congress people who can prove no contact with lobbyists within six months prior to the request should be allowed a single room, although they should have to re-apply monthly (showing proof of no contact with lobbyists during that time) I think they should be forced to stay in the dorms whenever Congress is in session.
      
      I'll send the recommendations to Chaffetz.

      replyreport
      1. 96

         wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Can't imagine what the cost of a receptionist has to do with housing for congress.  Let's forget that paragraph completely as it is irrelevant.
         
         Congressmen and women must maintain two homes - that's a reason to compensate them for the one in DC.
         
         Their allowance for office staff, etc. is also irrelevant - it is not intended to cover housing and should not be.  It is for expenses of the office, not the person.
         
         $3,000 subsidy through a tax break is hardly worth mentioning - it won't cover the cost of a second car, let alone a residence.
         
         BUT.  With a salary of 174,000 I fail to understand why more is needed to cover the cost of an apartment somewhere.  They aren't earning that money anyway and I see no reason to give them a raise, whether spun into "living costs" or any other method to hide it or call it something else.  The rules are in place for raises; let's follow them.

         replyreport
      2. 67

         ptosisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         I know, make them live in HUD housing in D.C. and Have the same healthcare as citizens do.

         replyreport
   2. 89

      GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Hi ptosis, I think it is a very dumb move. With the public's regard for Congress such as it is, to be asking for a housing stipend might seem like a bit of gall.
      
      My logic for that isn't just the appearance of the request that the above intimates.
      
      Your DC salary/wages info isn't relevant, but Wilderness' point of their $174,000 salary is. If they can't make ends meet on that salary, then maybe the job isn't right for them in the first place.
      
      Consider... if they aren't rich folks, and they have kids, a wife, and a mortgage back home - they are still making more than three times the median wage. If they don't have the savvy, or the network of supporting friends or constituents, that would allow them to do their job in DC, at $174k, without needing another stipend, then maybe back home would be the best place for them.
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Seeing how these people become lobbyists exactly half of the time  after their senate "duty "  , lets ask the corporate world to pre - bribe the senators  to make it easier on them ............;--}

         replyreport
         1. 89

            GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Alright now, ahorseback. I don't exactly agree with your insinuation, but that "pre-bribe" thought was a good one. ;-)
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 0

               ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               Question it if you will , I   don't know where I heard it but , the stats were quoted , 51 % of senate  left  after terms for lobbying positions .
               
               That doesn't get to you ?
               Chavits is going to Fox News .

               replyreport
2. 89

   Stacie Lposted 6 years ago

   Well, since Mr Trump has a hotel down the street, why not put them up in it?

   replyreport
   1. 96

      wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Libs would never put up with it as it means more money for Trump.  Besides, they'd probably vandalize the place.

      replyreport
   2. 62

      Perspycaciousposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      That would spend $2,500 the first night!

      replyreport