It was interesting to note that despite the fact that the new Congress had just started, the first weekend found members back in their home districts. Speaker Boehner reacted to the Tucson shooting with a statement from his district in Ohio; Minority Leader Pelosi gave her statement from San Francisco. Why this caught my attention is that when I was Chief of Staff (then less pretentiously called Administrative Assistant) for a Hawaii Congressman, a member of the House was allowed just two trips a year to the home district. Now, if my calculations are correct, a member from a district 1,500 miles from Washington, for example, has an annual travel allowance of nearly $65,000 which probably also allows the Member to take a staff person with him or her from time to time. Why two trips a year was enough in the early 60s but is now provided for every or nearly every weekend escapes me. On the other hand, the reason should be obvious. When it comes to taking care of itself, Congress is not given to moderation.
I raise this point to note the explosion in funding for Congress since my time. Each House member receives on average of about $1.5 million for staff and office support. Some of the funds and staff added over the years reflect the need for more help to service the growing size of a district. The average population of a House district has increased from about 412,000 in l960 to 708,000 today, an increase of about 70 percent; and of course the inflation factor has to be considered. But Congress, which is held in minimum low esteem by the public, has been lavishing more and more money upon itself for years, not just for members but also for padding the staffs of the many committees and subcommittees. So when Speaker Boehner talks about reducing the House budget by 5 percent, it is difficult to be impressed.
And with the Tucson shooting, there has been considerable talk about increasing the security for House and Senate members. One House member suggested a plexiglass shield to enclose the public gallery to protect members on the House floor against any shooting and/or bomb throwers in the gallery. Other House members, always alert to an opportunity to further fatten their coffers, have proposed a 10 percent increase in already overly generous staff budgets to cover security. Before Congress comes arguing about the need for more money to enhance security, it should shake out the currently bloated congressional budget and do what needs to be done without more money.
There was a time when a mass shooting such as occurred in Tucson would have been followed by a loud cry from a significant number of legislators for stronger gun controls. However, in the wake of the Tucson tragedy, there seems to be little said about gun control per se, apparently because the Congress has been cowed over the years by the National Rifle Association so those who might normally support stronger gun controls are wary of crusading in a legislative area filled with political land mines. Even the idea of banning excessively large bullet clips such as one that can hold 30+ bullets seems to be too bold an idea to be attracting much support; likewise the renewal of a ban on assault weapons.
So what is Congress likely to do? Answer: protect itself.
As noted above, one proposal is for a plexiglass shield to close in the public gallery and some are going for the money to add to the budget for office staff. A Texas Republican said members should be permitted to carry a weapon on the House floor. And then there is the proposal of Representative Peter King of New York whom I noted previously will be holding hearings on so-called radicalization of American Muslims. To that bad idea he has added another flowing from the Tucson shooting. King wants to make it a crime to bring a firearm within 1,000 feet of a government official. Thus our legislators would seek to protect themselves from another Tucson-type tragedy. Aside from the elitist appearance of the proposal, there is also the mind-stretching problem of enforcement. One thousand feet is more than three football fields. Would King's proposal, to have any prospect of being meaningful, mean encircling the area with enough security personnel and/or screening devices to detect a firearm? And what would "government official" mean? Would it include an official of the Department of Agriculture's extension service who visits a farmer who has a cabinet full of hunting weapons? Or, to keep it simple, "government official" would be defined as a person in the highest echelons of the bureaucracy.
The bottom line is that being a member of the House and Senate does indeed carry with it personal risk, but as shown in Tucson, there is also risk for the member's constituents if it involves a public gathering. So if anything is to be done, Congress needs to come up with a solution that is not unseemingly built around their own security and adding further to their elitist image.
Here here! I agree with you on all of the above. Just another excuse to spend more money. And why are they traveling home so much? The job they signed up for is in Washington. They don't need to travel home every weekend to "touch base" with their constituents. If they need to travel home so much to touch base with their constituents then it doesn't sound like they're really in touch with their constiuents at all. Especially since the session just started. If they don't know what their constituents want starting out then what hope is there? And to go a step further - it isn't very green. All this talk about global warming and carbon emissions. Well, flying home every weekend or close to it isn't going to decrease the carbon emissions folks. (Won't even get into how many of them traveled to Denmark on their private planes to attend the Global Warming Conference two years ago. Talk about hypocrisy.) Whatever happened to leadership by example. As I was reading this, I was also thinking about their constituents and the school shootings and protecting children and society. You read my mind on that too at the end of the post. It's all about their own safety. What about the safety of the American citizens? And taking a gun on the house floor? Really? If you don't feel safe on the house floor - you really feel you need to carry a gun - then maybe you shouldn't have run at all. As devisive as politics has been made out to be by the media, I don't think it has gotten that bad that they have to fear being shot by their fellow Congressmen and Congresswomen. The tragedy in Tucson has already been used by so many for their political agendas. Now it is going to be used for increasing House spending.
ReplyDeleteIn the House they used to refer to the Tuesday to Thursday club. Meaning there were only three days a week for transacting business, at least on the House floor. Am sure that "club" still exists but is probably made even worse by the rush to get out early enough on Thursday to beat the traffic to the airport. And with the many added trips, it has to be worse every Thursday. Congress is really pretty bad as an institution whose top value is protecting the institution and all that belong to it. In some sense, the Navy (and other branches perhaps) is just like that. The semi-porno scandal that was recently in the news with the showing of videos on board a carrier had been goning on for three years, until someone blew the whistle. And when it get before the public, the Navy was quick divert any attention from the question--why did it take you so long? And I remember about 20-25 years ago that the Navy was trying to blame a single sailor and mental problems for an explosion that killed 12(?) fellow sailors. The sailor's sister persisted and the Navy finally had to admit that the explosion was caused by bad equipment. In short, for large bureaucracies/institutions, the first order of business is self-protection.
ReplyDeleteSo it goes on and on. So keep you eyes and ears alert to how the Tucson shootings get manipulated to take care of the good old boys.
It was the tea party that has stood ont he platform of cut spending, cut spending and now given the first opportunity in new session there is already talk about increasing the house budget. I had a feeling with all the things I was hearing on tv that there might be some over the top response about for congressional security but guns on the house floor seems pretty excessive. Self protection and self interest always seem to come first as evidenced by cover ups, excessive perks like private jets and huge spending accounts and being above their own rules.
ReplyDeleteI'm not surprised about the exorbitant travel allowances. For a body that takes so many days off, the salaries and perks have always seemed out of line to me. More time needs to be focused on the important issues facing this country right now such as getting the economy back on track and people back to work, rather than self interests facing a particular body. I also see the Tucson tragedy as having been used to further politcal agenda and sadly take away from the focus of the human tragedy.
ReplyDeleteJeff
ReplyDeleteYes to all of that. It will be interesting to see how the Tea Party Congressmen and Senators vote on various spending issues now that they are part of the establishment regardless of any attempts to appear otherwise. This will be especially interesting on new spending to take care of themselves. But Congress has a way of hiding such stuff so you never really see the voting on some things.
Carol
ReplyDeleteThey have big allowances for what used to be called the "stationery" account. This would be used to pay for printing of brochures to send back home, buy a flag that has been run up and down the Capitol flagpole at night and is certified as having been flown over the Capitol, and lots of other things from the stationery store where only members and staff can shop and only if it can be charged to the office "stationery" account. And at bargain prices. Maybe they'll soon be selling guns there. And, I'm pretty sure, it used to be that at the end of a Congress a member could take out and keep whatever balance there was. Don't know if it works that way anymore but wouldn't be surprised.
In the next day or two the House will be voting on repeal of health care reform. Two points: one, the House legislative agenda will include a lot of stuff that has only a political purpose with no chance of making it past the Senate. Two, the Republicans have yet to come up with any health care plan of their own. Ah yes, they are at work for the people.