Congressional Dormitory
It’s quite true that members of congress who aren’t independently wealthy are placed under some real financial strain by the modern-day need to maintain two residences. My understanding is that it used to be the case that most members would simply move to DC. Congress works in DC, and people normally live in the metro area where their job is located. But moving oneself and one’s family to the dread Beltway has become a political liability, so people don’t do it. Thus, Atrios’s plan for “the construction of some sort of Congressional dormitory type thing” has some real merit to it. At the same time, it sounds hilarious — I’m imagining fun pranks and keggers.
The larger issue here, however, is that members of congress and high-level executive branch officials need to be paid more. These people make decent salaries — they’re not poor. But at the same time, folks like a backbench member of the House of Representatives or the Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America are supposed to be important actors in American society. It’s not a good idea for them to be making orders of magnitude less money than important people in the private sector. Somewhat less, sure. But over time the relative salary of a cabinet secretary versus a corporate executive has eroded enormously for no good reason — it’s not as if the budget savings involved are large enough to make an appreciable difference.
Meanwhile, this becomes a problem when you get deeper down into the regulatory agencies. If the EPA is supposed to be able to assess the level of pollution somewhere and take a bad actor to court if he violates the law, then the EPA needs to have good scientists and good lawyers working for it. That means those people need to be paid salaries that are competitive with what people in those fields can make in the private sector. If you don’t do that, then you either get people who are incompetent or, worse, the “revolving door” phenomenon in which the real value of government work is to cash in later by defecting to the private sector in a way that corrupts the regulatory process.
74 Responses to “Congressional Dormitory”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 23rd, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Which is to say that either Thinkprogress pays a fuckload, or they could be doing a lot better with some would-be blogger who joined the ranks of the I-bankers instead. Hey, maybe that guy has some free time now.
It’s not that higher salaries for govt. employees are objectionable, but that (a) the case isn’t as clear cut as you seem to be implying, and (b) higher salaries (gawd knows how high you want to increase them if you think that the present salaries are orders, plural, of magnitude off) will bring their own corruption problems.
November 23rd, 2008 at 3:23 pm
But over time the relative salary of a cabinet secretary versus a corporate executive has eroded enormously for no good reason
No, over time the relative salary of a corporate executive versus a cabinet secretary (or just about anyone else) has increased obscenely for no good reason.
November 23rd, 2008 at 3:29 pm
As to EPA scientists and lawyers, don’t ever discount the Federal Govenment health care and pensions in the mix. Many I have known in the government retired very comfortably at 55.
November 23rd, 2008 at 3:35 pm
over time the relative salary of a corporate executive versus a cabinet secretary (or just about anyone else) has increased obscenely for no good reason.
This seems blatantly obvious to me. Have you missed all the discussion over the last decade or so about how obscenely high CEO salaries are compared to (a) other workers, and (b) their actual value to their companies?
November 23rd, 2008 at 3:41 pm
We should offer public officials a trade: entering public life ends your commercial career, and in return, we give you a golden parachute.
November 23rd, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Also don’t discount the fact that some people think the work is important, and gladly do it for less than they’d work in their field elsewhere.
November 23rd, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Lord Yglesias, most American’s support households on less than $80k/yr (half of what your fine congresspeople are making). Plus its not really a “household” that they need to support, its a decent apartment to rest their head, unless ofcourse they’ve got a mistress to support.
What the rest of America doesn’t get about you Dalton School / Harvard folk is that you can’t make ends meet on normal budgets, you don’t understand the concept of sacrifice, and it has infested the halls of congress. You notice that in the last 20 years we have had a son of a widow balance the budget, but the son of a Senator and the Son of a President couldn’t? Ever think that is because we have people like Lord Yglesias running this country who have no clue about real life and real life american struggles.
I say build that dorm right after you build 100,000 of them around the country each capable of serving 535 poor families. That is where the $$ priorities should be for our country, not on overpaying people, oh and those government scientist get great benefits and job security, so don’t throw a pity party anytime soon Lord Yglesias.
November 23rd, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Um… ever hear of Section 8 housing?
November 23rd, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Jimboslice,
The Congressmen are also required to purchase expensive suits, make lots of donations to charities, send their children to private school and private university, be a member of a church, and travel back and forth to the district every weekend.
However, paying SES more will not produce one more bit of science or come up with one more new idea. The highest paid people in government are mangers who sit in meetings all day. The science and writing are done by contractors. Even the EPA farms out all of its reseach and the Department of Energy is totally operated by contractors.
And the civil servants retire at 55 because they the old system had pensions that did not require real funding and the 55 y/o civil servant goes to work for government contractors and makes more money.
November 23rd, 2008 at 5:05 pm
This is the sort of totally gratuitous post that probably helps Matt earn his brownie points among the established beltway royals, so that when Broder et al. are ready for retirement, they know they can call on Yglesias to carry on the grand old traditions, and maintain respect for degrees and ranks.
I think it is in the public interest to encourage representatives to spend as much time in their home districts as possible. Rather than give them more money to go to Washington, why not build and provide some advanced telecommunications infrastructure so that reps can do most of their work by teleconference. Congressional hearings, private chats with colleagues and lobbyists, debates, votes - none of that stuff requires that people actually be in one physical location in this day and age. We could have avoided the entire flap about the auto execs and their jets if they had just stayed in Detroit and been conferenced in.
Mr. Smith shouldn’t really need to go to Washington anymore, other than for ceremonial occasions.
November 23rd, 2008 at 5:10 pm
The comparable people in the private sector, at least in finance, have been shown to be massively overpaid for their level of responsibility and competence. Five years of service qualifies you for a pension. Congresscritters get fantastic perks and benefits. So boo freaking hoo about the pay.
And Pelosi and Reid should be ashamed at the so-called work rate in the last Congress. It was better than the last GOP Congress but that doesn’t mean it still doesn’t suck.
The Truman commission average more than 1 hearing a week for 7 years on the topic of military procurment. What the hell does the modern Congress do other than go on recess and whine?
The problem is the anti-DC rhetoric pushed by so many Congressional members that leads them to treat being in DC as an inconvenience. They are representives to the federal government. The federal government is in DC. You don’t need to go back home every week to eat at local places to stay in touch with the “values” of your constituents. Those constituents have Mayors and Governors and local officials to represent them at home. Your job is to represent them in DC. If you don’t understand that, these whiny losers shouldn’t run for the job in the first place.
November 23rd, 2008 at 5:12 pm
I’d say paying them more might just encourage even more people to get into politics for the money, not for the public good (this is already a big enough problem). Have the government spend the money directly on their housing for them, not give them the money directly. This way we can assure the money is being spent on the right thing (assuming of course we can prevent horribly corrupt no-bid for profit contracts on these endeavors and assuming they don’t build themselves a 5 star resort).
I think Atrios had this same thought in mind when he suggested building the dormitory rather than merely giving them a raise. They need housing, so give them housing, not money.
November 23rd, 2008 at 5:16 pm
This actually is a problem for people serving in Congress. I know no one wants to sympathize but a Rep. simply can’t sell the old homestead back in the home district or he/she will be crucified. The median house in my zip code in DC costs $1 million bucks — and that’s for not nearly as nice a home as you would think it would be. A two bedroom apartment will run you from between $400,000 to $600,000 and a small three bedroom house will set you back about $750,000. Rents on two bedrooms routinely run from $2-3,000 a month.
Some sort of subsidized modest dorm housing probably wouldn’t be a bad idea. Right now I think a lot of the reps. share town houses on the hill.
November 23rd, 2008 at 5:19 pm
It’s not a good idea for them to be making orders of magnitude less money than important people in the private sector.
That would give rise to the dreaded “class warfare.”
November 23rd, 2008 at 5:22 pm
I do think that the necessity of a personal fortune in modern politics corrupts the system. We have rich people governing for themselves and their rich friends. We have Wall St. CEO’s deciding whats best for their CEO friends.
I would be interested in ideas for how to create incentives for politicians to keep the average citizen in mind.
Wouldn’t it be great if since 70% of the people think W. did a bad job that meant he’d have to give up 70% of his fortune? (obviously, this idea would not actually work, but you get my point).
November 23rd, 2008 at 5:23 pm
I think providing Congressmen and other public servants with affordable and aesthetic public housing in central D.C would be a good idea for several reasons:
1. It makes it possible for less affluent people to run for Congress and not go broke trying to pay for two places at the same time, which expensive on anyone’s salaries.
2. It creates opportunities for public servants to build the kind of communal experiences that develop a spirit of cooperation for the public good.
3. It ties the economic fortunes of powerful people to the economic fortunes of poor people living in public housing, hopefully opening up the eyes of public servants to the need for affordable housing in a way that might get some built.
November 23rd, 2008 at 5:25 pm
The median house in my zip code in DC costs $1 million bucks — and that’s for not nearly as nice a home as you would think it would be. A two bedroom apartment will run you from between $400,000 to $600,000 and a small three bedroom house will set you back about $750,000. Rents on two bedrooms routinely run from $2-3,000 a month.
That right there is the problem my friend. You have no concept of what the real world is like, and if congress people lived in your zip they would have no idea either. I bet you could find a more than decent 2 bedroom within 45 minutes of the district for $400-$750/month. There is no need for them to live in a zip that is 5 x as expensive.
November 23rd, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Really?? What about the last eight years (or two hundred years, for that matter) makes you think Congressmen deserve more money?
November 23rd, 2008 at 5:40 pm
FWIW, there is actually some precedent for the dormitory idea. Congressmen for much of the 19th c actually lived in boarding houses. James Sterling Young’s _The Washington Community, 1800-1820_ is an old, but excellent, book on how the boarding house system affected congressional politics (clique formation, etc). One problem of congressmen living like that, I guess, is the sometimes complicated personal relationships that living together in a dormitory setting can cause.
November 23rd, 2008 at 5:59 pm
I bet you could find a more than decent 2 bedroom within 45 minutes of the district for $400-$750/month.
Really? I suspect you are the one who doesn’t know what the “real world” is like. The apartment complexes out in the suburbs, near a metro station, a total 40-60 minute trip to downtown DC, of the sort that plenty of latin american immigrants rent, costs about $1500/month for a 2-bedroom and about $1000 for a one-bedroom. These are the “good deals” that people take advantage of. Living within 45 minutes of DC is an extraordinarily popular lifestyle choice for many, many people. As a consequence, demand is tight. And what’s “within 45 minutes of the district”? Are you counting traffic? Because 45 minutes driving, with traffic, is pretty close.
Let me fix a few other misconceptions: first, many upper-level civil servants of the professional type (eg, lawyers, scientists, etc.) do not have pensions but rather have a 401(k)-style plan, in part because this is the standard plan available to those of a similar professional position in the private sector. Next, we shouldn’t think of congressional pay scales as being akin to that of CEOs (which would be ridiculous), but rather of other upper-middle-class professionals like high-level managers, doctors, and lawyers. At the same time, much of their unusual expenses comes from the housing issue, so I’d be highly in favor of a congressional dorm! They’d get to live closely together and have to learn to deal with each other, and, realistically, all congressmen really need while they’re in washington is a place to rest their head.
November 23rd, 2008 at 6:05 pm
JimboSlice:
Here are the current Craigslist listings for 2BR apartments in the DC area:
http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/search/apa?query=&minAsk=min&maxAsk=&bedrooms=2
Feel free to peruse them for the “more than decent” apartments between $400 (ha!) and $750 per month that you claim are simple to find within easy commuting distance of the Capitol.
Also, feel free to have a vague grasp of the relevant facts before accusing other people of not living in the “real world” - or not, if you prefer.
November 23rd, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Another solution would be to have Congressmen live exclusively in their home districts and do their work via teleconferencing.
There is no real need for them to reside in Washington at all.
November 23rd, 2008 at 6:23 pm
“The larger issue here, however, is that members of congress…need to be paid more.”
I’m sure glad that my ex-congressman Virgil Goode was not paid more.
November 23rd, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Just imagine the Halo LAN games and the implications of Red vs. Blue in that context…
November 23rd, 2008 at 7:30 pm
But moving oneself and one’s family to the dread Beltway has become a political liability, so people don’t do it
There are good reasons for not moving your family that have nothing to do with ‘political liabilities.’
In the military, most jobs are no more than five, and sometimes as little as two years before requiring a move. There are many people, especially later in their career, who decide to ‘geo-bachelor’ - i.e. take pcs orders to a different base and leave their family where they are, even though they are entitled to move them. The most common reason is that folks who are later in their career have kids who are teenagers in high school, and moving them is far more disruptive than when the kids were in elementary school. These folks also tend to be closer to retirement, and plan to move back to where their family is currently domiciled at the end of the tour. This especially makes sense if daddy (or mommy) is going to away months at a time on a deployment.
For Congressman the decision to keep the family put is even easier, as most of them go home nearly every week-end anyway.
November 23rd, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Of course, government officials can now earn astronomical salaries after they leave office, giving speeches, lobbying, and joining the industries they once regulated. So a government job is actually key, in many cases, to a huge jump in wealth. It’s just a matter of delayed gratification.
November 23rd, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Meh. I agree with Matt.
We have to remember that if members of Congress have a family, the representative’s spouse is out of work, taking care of the kids. 160k a year for members of an elite body in the US is pretty abominable.
November 23rd, 2008 at 8:51 pm
There is also the pedantic point that any increase to congressional compensation can’t go into effect until 2011 at the earliest, courtesy of the 27th Amendment (’The OG First Amendment’)
November 23rd, 2008 at 8:58 pm
ugh, pedantry fail. The 27th amendment was article II of the original bill of rights, not I.
November 23rd, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Tons of cheap jerks in the free market stay at flea bags and pocket the per diem. Don’t buy the sob stories of these people who sleep in their office. I bet most of them would do the same thing if you paid them 500K too. Tom Feeney used to make a big thing back in his district about his poor everyman digs in DC. Meanwhile he’s taking junkets on Jack Abramoff’s dime to St. Andrews. I call bullshit on this story.
Congress wants to act like Goldilocks? Give them all a free Katrina trailer or Section 8 voucher. Otherwise a nice cup of STFU is on the menu.
November 23rd, 2008 at 9:49 pm
I see plenty of decent aparments for that price range. I guess what I (and the real world) call decent isn’t what Lord Yglesias and his Harvard alum call decent. Guess anything that doesn’t have a 24/7 doorman is not decent for you. 4 walls, a roof, and working utilities is decent to most people
November 23rd, 2008 at 9:53 pm
The problem is that bureaucrat salaries are not insanely disconnected from reality just like the private sector? We’re going to let corporate America’s overvaluation of its own worth drive government salaries now?
Somehow, that doesn’t seem like the right solution.
November 23rd, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Jimbo, stop lying. Find me me of those craigslist listings that is in your price range. You are either a troll or you have no clue what life in a major city is like. 750 will get you a bedroom in a group house (and not a nice one), not a one bedroom within 25 miles of dc.
November 23rd, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Congressional flophouse
November 23rd, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Matt,
I’ve been a fan of this blog for awhile now. But lately there’s been a snottiness and stuck-up thing in your writing that’s not so nice.
As a manager and a 10-year lawyer at a cabinet-level agency, I am making decidedly less money than my counterparts in the private bar. This does not make me “incompetent or worse,” as you suggest. While I think pay parity is a good idea, I know there are many excellent professionals in federal service who are there because of their commitment to the common good.
Your post, perhaps unwittingly, fetishizes the private sector with the belief that the best and the brightest always go where the money is. The private sector doesn’t always do it better. In fact, the Wall Street banks and all the law and accounting firms (all staffed with the best the Ivies can produce) just completedly made a hash of everything. Who’s going to fix it? A whole bunch of staff professionals at Treasury, the Fed, and bunch of other federal agencies who by forsaking the inflated salaries of corporate capitalism must by your argument be incompetent or worse.
Come on Matt. You’re a liberal. Why are you lionizing the private sector and repeating the right wing meme that federal employees suck?
November 23rd, 2008 at 11:03 pm
# nathaniel Says:
November 23rd, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Jimbo, stop lying. Find me me of those craigslist listings that is in your price range. You are either a troll or you have no clue what life in a major city is like. 750 will get you a bedroom in a group house (and not a nice one), not a one bedroom within 25 miles of dc.
—-
I know I live in a major American city in a 2 BR apartment (with all util execpt elec included, oh and it has gas heat) for $690 a month. I don’t live the Ritz lifestyle, but I do live in a decent place.
It is the fact that people like Nathaniel and Matthew are so out of touch with truly struggling that you think you can’t find a livable place for that kind of $$, fact is you can find a livable place, but it might not have the accouterments that fine folk like yourself are used to, but don’t tell me it can’t be done!
November 24th, 2008 at 1:44 am
I live in a major American city in a 2 BR apartment … for $690 a month.
That’s great. Which one? Maybe you haven’t noticed, but housing prices can vary WIDELY between cities. I live in Los Angeles. A couple years ago my wife was spending the summer in Indianapolis, and so for shits and giggles we took a look at housing prices there.
A typical two-bedroom house in a typical area there cost about $150,000. At that point in Los Angeles County, median housing price was above $500,000. Even if you picked a house in the most crime-infested, depressed area of the city it would have run you about $300,000. Meanwhile in Indianapolis, $500,000 could get you a huge house on an acre of land and a small lake. Yes, the same price as a postwar 2-bedroom 1600-s.f. house in a lousy old suburb like Van Nuys. Location, location, location.
Welcome to the real world — where the desirable cities to live in cost a lot more.
November 24th, 2008 at 1:48 am
Accoutrements? What, like not being in a gang warzone and not being infested by roaches?
You could find decent housing around DC for $700 a month. But that would be a room in a house, not a 2 bedroom apartment.
If you want to make the point that congressmen can live frugally, fine. Don’t claim they can magically live in spacious abodes for next to no money, (unless they’re Norm Coleman, of course).
That’s not how Americans live. Normal people have to work hard and spend a lot of money for decent accommodations in expensive real estate markets.
November 24th, 2008 at 4:36 am
If you’re a House member, you also don’t really have the option to sell your back-home house unless you have a really good PVI, because you could always be turned out in two years.
I do read stories about the bunking up that some legislators do, sometimes across party lines and e.g. fellow members of the same state delegation. So it’s definitely a choice that some (most) members make to get a full apartment/condo/house of their own.
Anyway, the main problem with a Congressional dormitory is how to make the benefit equitable, especially for those who’ve already taken a mortgage. Can you imagine the voucher arguments? Not taking the benefit might become a point of pride in itself.
November 24th, 2008 at 4:47 am
Keep in mind that Sens. Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin share a rowhouse with Reps. Bill Delahunt and Geroge Miller. I believe there’s some Christian-sort of organization that owns a few houses in DC and rents rooms to Congressmen for cheap. It strikes me that there’s enough of a demand for this sort of thing that it might be a good idea for Congress to take a direct interest and sponsor some kind of dorm or, at least, roommate-finding service for Congressmen. Plus, I have to add that apartment hunting in DC is an awful, awful experience. I have too many stories of rushing over to see advertised one bedroom apartments that cost $1400/month to find that they were not only small and run down but that 20 other people had seen it ahead of me and the place had been already taken by the time I got there.
November 24th, 2008 at 7:12 am
Jimbo, really just shut up. You clearly don’t know what you are talking about. I am talking as someone who at one point made 13.00 an hour in DC (3 years ago) and thought the one bedroom I found near RFK metro (not as bad an area as its reputation but not nice) for 1000 was an absolute steal. The kitchen wasn’t really big enough to cook easily as it had it had about a 3 foot wide countertop space to prepare food, I ate in the living room, the dryer took 3 cycles to dry anything, the walls were paper thin, in the the summer the ac couldn’t get it below about 80, and it had no dishwasher among other things. I was right about it being a steal, everyone I knew was shocked about how good the deal I found.
November 24th, 2008 at 8:20 am
While I’m sure housing costs are tough on Congressfolk, I disagree that helping with that expense would have any real effect on the current trend of almost needing to be wealthy to get elected, especially to the Senate. I think the problem here isn’t with paying for the lifestyle once you get elected (it might be tough, but I think most people could manage it), but rather getting elected in the first place. How many average middle class workers could, first of all, take 6-9 months off from their job for full-time campaigning and be able to support themselves while doing so, and also still have a job at the end if they lose? Not too many. Second, in order to run, you need to be able to raise lots of money, which means you need lots of contacts in the fundraising business, and with various wealthy donors. The most likely way to gain entry to that arena is either to already be rich.
So the only real options for running for office are to work your way up through the political system, from the ground floor, or to be independantly wealthy and short-circuiting the process. (And of course personal wealth makes running for lower offices a lot easier, too–it’s not like wealth is only important once you get to running for the House.)
November 24th, 2008 at 8:29 am
Tackling the other two arguments for Congressional pay–the first is that it would attract more people–pay better, get better qualified Congressmen. I’m not so sure on this one. First, because as previously discussed, most of the folks running are independantly wealthy anyway. Second, even if you are motivated by money, there are few things you could do with your life that would increase future earning potential more than being a Congressman for a while. So there’s always the option of cashing in after leaving office.
The other main argument is the trickle down one–that paying more at the top allows you to pay more competitive salaries down the line. This is the one argument that has some merit. However, at least in the sciences/engineering, the situation isn’t that bad. Government salaries are a bit lower than private industry, but not by that much. And the improved job security, at least for me, more than makes up for any dip in my base salary.
Where I think there might be a significant delta in salaries is in the mid-level executives (in the government, they’re making 100-150k, which is a nice salary but probably quite a bit less than an executive at IBM heading a division of 100 people makes), and for those with specialist degrees like lawyers or doctors (although again, I know in law not everyone is working at large big city firms making the best money, and there are significant advantages in job security and lower stress levels with working as “in house counsel” for the government.)
November 24th, 2008 at 8:39 am
Does this dormitory come with bars on the windows and doors?
November 24th, 2008 at 10:07 am
So I am talking about living within 45 minutes of the district and you are talking about living IN the district. It is possible to live within 45 minutes of DC for under $750 a month. The location might not be the best, the apartment might not be the best, but it is possible. It would be nice to know that congresspeople have to struggle a bit like everyone else, but then again for Lord Yglesias and Nathaniel struggling is having only a part-time doorman.
November 24th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Jimbo, the answer is no, it is not possible to get a 2 bedroom apartment within 45 minutes of the district for 750. With traffic and trying to get to the capital, you are talking inside the beltway. Clearly you have no understanding of what life is like in DC, so stop trying to pretend you do.
November 24th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Before the days of cheap air travel, Congresscritters had to move to the capital too, and they did stay in dormitories, though they were not taxpayer-funded. They were cheap boarding houses that provided 2 meals a day. Some of the more famous ones might have 20-30 Congresscritters staying at once. They were partly run on donations to keep expenses low. It led to a lot of over-breakfast wheeling-and-dealing. I kinda like this idea. Why should they sell their home back home? They’re only going to be here 4-6 years anyway, if the voters choose someone else.
November 24th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Jimbo, it is obvious from this discussion that you don’t live in the DC area. If you can find a single example of a two bedroom for under $1000 on craigslist, post it here and we can debate it’s suitability. Until then, I believe you’ve been served a big can of STFU.
November 24th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Jimbo, it is obvious from this discussion that you don’t live in the DC area.
Ah, but remember, he lives in a “major American city.” Housing in DC has to be similar to housing in Cincinnati or Jacksonville or wherever the hell it is this guy lives.
The location might not be the best, the apartment might not be the best, but it is possible.
You really don’t understand gradations of apartments in big cities, do you? I know what you’re trying to get at — my previous residence was a perfectly OK 2-bedroom apartment with a kind of old kitchen and an annoying 20-degree slope that made parking or moving a pain in the ass, but it was clean and mostly in good repair and none of the neighbors were obviously criminals. The neighborhood had a lot of Chinese restaurants. It was about a 40-minute bus ride outside of downtown L.A. and it was $1500 a month. NOT $400 - $750.
This is not a bunch of rich whiners complaining that they don’t like the color of the marble in the elevator lobby. This is ordinary people talking about decent living quarters.
November 24th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Elaine beat me to remarking on 19th century boarding houses. I’ll just add that the influence of Boarding House daughter Jenny O’Neil on the Jackson administration was significant. (She married a member of Jackson’s cabinet, and she was snubbed by the wives of other politicians. Jackson’s wife had died after being attacked as a loose woman — because there was some issue with the Jackson’s marriage — and Jackson would only associated with people — mainly bachelors — who did not snub Jenny.)
November 24th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Three Words:
Leftover FEMA Trailers!
November 24th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Corporate salaries and bonuses/options for top levels have gotten so entirely out of proportion to worker wages that it is no surprise whatsoever that congressional salaries appear inadequate, too.
And K-streeters make oodles, too, so the local housing market in DC is really distorted.
In a macro-economic sense, the (slow-acting) solution is one that has been floated before: non-deductability for salaries and bonuses in excess of X-times low-wage workers in a business. (40X, 25X, 50X–I dunno). Current ratios are obscene.
Thus the pressure to offer ‘competitive’ wages for congresspersons would subside if private industry were less motivated to over-compensate themselves.
Of course, one must also factor in lifetime pensions for Congresspersons that vest after one term–price THAT into your long-term pay packet! A little short-term living in “squalor” in return for hugely comfortable retirement.
November 24th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
I get it that you and the rich “progressive” scum such as Lord Yglesias (you want progress, but never at your own expense, and never by sacrificing anything of value to you. I consider myself a true progressive who gives to charity until it hurts, in the good times and the bad.
But anyways, back to my point, what you and the Lord Yglesias types consider “decent” is probably what I consider luxurious, and what I consider “decent” you probably could only imagine slumming it in as you go to goodwill to get your latest hipster look.
I just went on craigslist (not where you go if you looking for place on this quality scale) but there are 258 hits for 2BR in DC between 400 and 750 /month. Granted most are probably scams, but they do exist.
Oh and 45 minutes means you can be on DC soil within 45 minutes via normal and legal modes of transport (rail, bus, car)
November 24th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Hey Jimbo, how about you actually tell us what “major American city” you live in, and then we can have a frame of reference. Until you do, we have no idea what kind of a yardstick you’re using.
November 24th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Philly
November 24th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
OK, this is getting ridiculous. Jimboslice, show us a link to the decent DC area 2BR apartment for between $400-750 month.
Because, as far as I could tell, the listings close to that range were either a. inauguration rentals going for $500+ per DAY (not month) or b. blatant scams.
Sarah Palin aside, ranting about the “elitism” of your critics typically doesn’t compensate for having no clue what you’re talking about.
November 24th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Have you read any of the Matthew Yglesias blog posts? You want to talk about not have a clue about what your talking about read some of the s*t that comes out of Lord Yglesias’ keyboard.
As far as the DC area rent situation I was attacked for first not living in a “major city” then once I noted that I do I was then attacked for it not being up to the quality of a DC (someone mocked Jacksonville I think) now once I point out that I live in a far better city than DC (Phillies >> Nats) you now attack me for being like Sarah Palin, righttt.
Point is be it $400, $750 or $1000 a month these congresspeople can find housing that is affordable relative to their salary, although it might not be up to Lord Yglesias’ standards, and should not be living out of their offices for at least 2 years:
1 - Its the people’s office, we built them an office, we didn’t build them a dorm, and no matter how hard they try the office functionality will be decreased by converting it into a part time living quarters.
2 - That option is not avaliable to other Government workers, last time I checked no one was sleeping in the PTO.
November 24th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
*sorry that should be: “… out of their office for at least 2 reasons:” , not ” … 2 years:”
November 25th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
The people who are underpaid in the bureaucracy aren’t the political appointees — it’s not like many people turn down a job as Deputy Secretary of Whatever — it’s the technical people. The government has a hard time hiring top computer programmers and systems people. The same probably holds true for other specialties like accounting and medicine (although I have less direct knowledge).
January 28th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Hey Friends,
I was recently looking for an Antioxidant , to detox my body.
I was suprised to find this site
[url=http://www.getfreeantiox.com]FREE AntiOxidant Bottle[/url]
They are giving away this excellent Grape Seed Antioxidant for free.
Try to grab one till this offer is on
Love
Nancy
March 11th, 2009 at 4:56 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 17th, 2009 at 2:32 am
Incredible site!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:25 am
tramadol
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:34 am
buy viagra online
I want to say - thank you for this!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:33 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:21 am
I want to say - thank you for this!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 7:10 am
Great site, Good info viagra