Part time congress?

Rick Perry continues to push for the idea of a part time congress in his new presidential ad.

What do you think of his plan? My first reaction was “YES!” but then I started to think about how they are only there for about 150 days a year now. I bet he could have filmed an ad accusing congress already being part time while arguing our elected officials aren’t working enough. Perhaps that would generate an equally positive response from a frustrated society.

10 Replies to “Part time congress?”

  1. Anonymous

    150 days a year. Does that include the many days they, at least some of them, spend at meetings in their home states with different groups such as business leaders, editors, elderly, farmers, medical personal, veterans and others, like Noem does?

    1. anon

      You mean fundraisers she has? about 15 but during august recess she didn’t find the time for 1 town hall? Is that what you mean? I don’t think Congress needs any less time in DC than they already have. They leave everything until the end of the session and then bolt before the work is finnished because they can’t wait to get home for the holiday or the weekend.

      How about they vote by thumb print from their state they represent?

      I’m not overly impressed with DC or anyone other than Thune these days in SD.

  2. Anonymous

    The dems headed out of town early for the holidays while the GOP was left holding the water for them.

  3. Duh

    Perry’s suggestion of a part time Congress is stupid as it is hokey and narrow-minded. He is looking at it from the eyes of a state executive. States don’t have issues regarding the military, foreign policy, foreign aid, wars, medicare, medicaid and supremacy clause issues. I can imagine the cluster it would be if Congress met half as much. Yeah, yeah, you can pump up your chest and claim “Oh, then they’d be like us, getting paid $50,000 a year and spending more time here”. Very juvenile proposal. Probably made only for shock value and is or was an attempt to set himself apart. Used to like him, but his stances on certain issues and his increasingly shrinking head have turned me off.

  4. Duh

    Also, they’re not rolling in dough. Ok, $174,000 per year. Take at least 50% off in state and fed taxes = $87,000. Then minus the duplicitous (don’t know if that’s a word but I like it) expenses of maintaining two homes, one of which is in DC (top 3 most expensive cities) and you’re down probably to the high 40’s. Then you have to send money home to the fam for them to live on. No lottery here.

  5. troy jones

    More importantly, it has no chance of ever passing, ticks off people Perry will need to work with to be an effective President.

    If Perry is serious about this, he is not fit to govern.

    If it is just pandering, he is not fit to govern.

    This is probably the #1 reason any consideration I might have had for him disappeared. We need a President who can govern or we will just implode as a nation.

    1. veldy

      It would be obvious that a proposal like this is not going anywhere. So it would appear you could use the term “pandering” and, if doing so makes one unfit to govern, then you have a long way to go to find one that would be fit to govern.

      I take it as he’s pointing out a basic philosophy of his that Washington creates more problems than it solves(something I agree with), and comparing/contrasting that with other philosophies that emphasize an activist legislative attitude.

    2. Michael

      Amen. If you want populist congressional reform, how about requiring (1) a single subject for a bill, and (2) bills to be written so that deleted material is stricken through and new material is underlined? Either idea would make bills much easier for the public to understand, and Congress more transparent. If you are going to advocate for something that will never pass, to pander to the populists, at least advocate for something that might help.