Third Party & Independents Archives

US House takes day off for football, Senate stays to work

As most of you know by now the Florida Gators defeated the Ohio State Buckeyes on Monday night in the college football Bowl Championship Series championship. Many of you probably watched the game. Most likely your day went something like this: you woke up, went to work for eight to ten hours, came home and had dinner, and than either watched the game at home or went out to watch it. Well the United States House doesn’t have time for that.

In a gross show of arrogance the United States House took off on Monday for the BCS title game, a decision agreed upon by both major parties (http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/situation.room/blog/ scroll down about half way to see the information on the day off). The Senate in a show that it is the more responsible big brother of sorts did not take the day off for the BCS title game.

If we can all go to work and than come home and watch the game than why can't the members of the US House? This is absolutely disgusting in the state we are in right now this is inexcusable, and each and every member of the House needs to be called or emailed or hounded in one way or another to be told why.

Posted by Richard Rhodes at January 10, 2007 1:00 AM
Comments
Comment #202270

Much ado about nothing, Richard. Fact is, the Congress persons needed more time to prepare debate and read the proposed bills anyway, some of which were not even ready to distribute till yesterday.

Yeah, a few took advantage of the time to see the big lug game in Arizona. But, many others better prepared themselves to meet the challenge of the commencement of the first 100 hours.

Much ado about nothing, IMO.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 10, 2007 1:26 AM
Comment #202272

And many of us, seeing what is being proposed in this ‘first 100 hours’ would rather they took more time off, to be honest. :P

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 10, 2007 1:33 AM
Comment #202273

David- They knew they would be in office, in power, over two months ago. I am not convinced that this day was taken off for ‘extra work’ this is arrogance at its finest. Moreover the CNN piece cited mentions that our servicemen in danger everyday in Iraq don’t get these random frivilous days off. This is ridiclous and this is a show of arrogance.

Posted by: Richard Rhodes at January 10, 2007 1:35 AM
Comment #202274

David- Also this could lead to worse. What if this leads to taking all of March off for March Madness, the day after the Super Bowl off to recover, the NBA Finals off, the Kentucky Derby off, the NBA Finals off, the NHL finals off, the MLS finals off, the Little League World Series off, and so on and so on. My point is these legislatures are well paid and are responsible to their constituents, us. We have to work these days, so they have to work those days and most of us don’t make near what they do.

Posted by: Richard Rhodes at January 10, 2007 1:39 AM
Comment #202286

Wow, all the Federal holidays, a bunch of recesses, better paid than teachers, what a racket! I want to be a Congressman too. Oh wait, I have trouble lying to people about the way things make me feel. Oh well, nothing that a steady regimen of alcohol can’t cure. I can watch sports while drinking and knock off two birds with one stone. Not that I would ever kill a bird, especially if its endangered…..

Posted by: 1LT B at January 10, 2007 5:03 AM
Comment #202290

Richard Rhodes-
One day, and all of a sudden they’re going to take whole basketball seasons off? Maybe I should be reassured if the worst problem you can find is a potential for laziness.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 10, 2007 8:42 AM
Comment #202291

We get the kind of government we deserve. We voted them in, maybe next time you can vote them out.
Like others said, I wish I could get into Congress, get paid to flapping my lips, kiss a baby ot two, not worry about paying into social security and get a pension and not even having to put in at least 20yrs at a job.
I guess money talks and bs works

Posted by: KT at January 10, 2007 8:48 AM
Comment #202323

Adrienne,

I also blame the Dems for this one. Kind of like a principle shutting down an entire school because one student wanted to go to the circus. Very irresponsible to say the least. Dems are in charge now and they made the decision.

Posted by: tomd at January 10, 2007 11:56 AM
Comment #202325

What I don’t understand is why the entire House has to shut down because one or even a few want to be absent. My company certainly don’t close if I take a day off.

Posted by: tomd at January 10, 2007 12:00 PM
Comment #202326

tomd:
“Dems are in charge now and they made the decision.”

Perhaps they didn’t want to be accused of shutting out the GOP entirely as they move forward on such important legislation. Look at how Drudge immediately twisted this — the GOP made the request, but the Dems are automatically blamed. Now they’re “very irresponsible to say the least” for granting your party’s request. Just proves that the GOP slime machine is always churning everything into a damned-if-we-do-or-don’t situation.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 10, 2007 12:15 PM
Comment #202337

Nothing is safe when Congress is in secession. Give them the whole next two years off.
Seriously, we can’t take whole day off for things like this. Why should our employees? And they did it without our permission. Try that with your employer and see if you have a job the next day.
Is this irresponsible behavior what we want from those we’ve entrusted with running our country? If they’re being this irresponsible now, how will they act in the future?
Maybe we ought to recall everyone of them and hold the election again. But this time not let the incumbents run for office.
For those that want to excuse this irresponsibility. Would you be so willing to excuse it if the Republicans were still in control of Congress?

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 10, 2007 1:26 PM
Comment #202339

Adrienne
It don’t matter who asked for the day off. Both sides agreed to it. That make both side of the isle irresponsible.
But at least they proved they can take bipartisan action. Now to only get them to do that on the real problems of facing this country.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 10, 2007 1:35 PM
Comment #202340

The 100 hours have already passed and Do-Nothing Congress has lived up to its reputation.
Congress knows that voters will keep rewarding them by repeatedly re-electing them, no matter how irresponsible, corrupt, and FOR-SALE they are.
So why change now?
Voters will have to vote out more than 10% of incumbents to get the message across to our arrogant, FOR-SALE, corrupt Congress.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 10, 2007 1:36 PM
Comment #202343

Hey just thought of something.
WHAT HAPPENED TO PELOSI’S PROMIS OF 5 DAY WORK WEEKS?

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 10, 2007 1:40 PM
Comment #202346

“Would you be so willing to excuse it if the Republicans were still in control of Congress?”

You know better than that Ron.
It would have been on the front page of about every newspaper, the lead news story on TV and we would have had about 3 posts in the blue column about it.

But come on people, this is nothing new.
I agree with Remer, much to do about nothing, IMO. Shoot, I would have taken the day off too but my wife beat me too it. Now THAT was wrong.

Posted by: kctim at January 10, 2007 1:49 PM
Comment #202351


Old habits are hard to break even if it is what is best for your health.

Posted by: jlw at January 10, 2007 2:02 PM
Comment #202352

5 Day Work Weeks?
That was about as believable as the list for the first 100 hours.

Ron Brown,
You’re right.
We are in more danger when Congress is in session, since it has a propensity for creating more problems than it solves.

What on this list has Congress solved yet ?

Posted by: d.a.n at January 10, 2007 2:02 PM
Comment #202354

I’ve heard conflicting reports on who asked for it but that doesn’t matter. The analogy of the principal closing the school at the request of one student still applies.

“Perhaps they didn’t want to be accused of shutting out the GOP entirely as they move forward on such important legislation.”

Do I need to find the quote from Mrs. Pelosi where she said the Republicans were going to be shut out for the first 100 hours?

Posted by: tomd at January 10, 2007 2:13 PM
Comment #202355

“Now they’re “very irresponsible to say the least” for granting your party’s request. Just proves that the GOP slime machine is always churning everything into a damned-if-we-do-or-don’t situation.”

Yes they are being very irresponsible and BTW, It’s not my party.

Posted by: tomd at January 10, 2007 2:19 PM
Comment #202369

You know, there are some things important enough to gripe over and fight over, and some things just make you shake your head and go on to more important things.

*shaking head*

Posted by: womanmarine at January 10, 2007 2:56 PM
Comment #202380

Thats two in two days Ms Marine:)

Posted by: kctim at January 10, 2007 3:57 PM
Comment #202388

Stephen,

You wrote an entire post on these kids of sheninagans a month ago: http://www.watchblog.com/democrats/archives/004554.html#more.

In here you say, “I don’t want my party’s delegation in congress to sink to the depths that the Republicans did. I am willing to see turnover, even at the price of the majority, to see my party retain its integrity. That’s what I want.”

Still mean it?

Posted by: Rob at January 10, 2007 5:12 PM
Comment #202390

With everyone present, the Minimum Wage vote was taken today. Had this been Monday, everyone would not have had a vote on the issue. It’s is a big issue this minimum wage, some will lose jobs because of it, some jobs won’t be created because of it, and millions of employees from summer H.S. students to retirees having to supplement their income, are going to see their annual compensation rate rise from a little over $11,000 per year to over $15,000 per year.

That was worth waiting one day for, I would say, on the scale of things.

The 100 hours began Tue. and counts only the hours that Congress is in session. It never, ever represented 24 hour periods on the clock.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 10, 2007 5:26 PM
Comment #202402

If the minimum wage increase is so important why only raise it to $7.25 per hour? Surely a family of 4 can’t live on that amount. Why not raise it to $20 per hour?

Posted by: tomd at January 10, 2007 6:31 PM
Comment #202411

The Miniumum Wage issue is a Red-Herring.
The market decides wages.
And, with a steady supply of illegal aliens, the whole thing is a farce.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 10, 2007 6:55 PM
Comment #202440

dan-
Tell me, then, what decides the market? And who decides the law on illegal aliens and makes sure it’s enforced. The Democrats will be under some pressure by labor to start doing things for the working class. I’m sure immigration reform is one of them.

tomd-
Why not let the cheapness of business owners dictate how much people make, meaning we can all enjoy the consequences of their not being a floor to poverty for the working class? If you want to know why Marxism never really put down roots in America, you have only to look at our labor laws and our minimum wage. Y’all complain about envy, but the fact is, people can afford enough, even on meager minimum wage, that they aren’t so apt to follow the pied pipers of economic equalization.

Unfortunately, seeing marxism in any labor movement or laws that restrict the free market, Republicans have been hard at work undoing this. Result? When economic expansion isn’t floating all boats, people are suffering, and guess who they’re blaming?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 10, 2007 10:28 PM
Comment #202452


Stephen D: I live down here at the bottom. You can ask just about anyone that is a member of the working poor why they are poor and they will tell you straight up, it’s the rich men’s fault, they are to greedy.

Except for my nephew, he is 22 and a true red Republican. He is also a Hindu and hates Christianity. He doesn’t believe in the minimum wage or labor laws. Businessmen should be able to pay what they wnat and treat their workers anyway they want. He works at Pizza Hut for $6.50 per hr.

Posted by: jlw at January 10, 2007 11:38 PM
Comment #202456

kctim
Your right we’d never hear the end of it.


d.a.n

What on this list has Congress solved yet ?

NOT A THING!!!!!!!!! And they aint gonna unless about 300,000,000 of us force themn to.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 10, 2007 11:50 PM
Comment #202483

Steve.

I asked why not make the minimum wage $20 per hour instead of $7.25. Your answer is as follows: “tomd-
Why not let the cheapness of business owners dictate how much people make, meaning we can all enjoy the consequences of their not being a floor to poverty for the working class? If you want to know why Marxism never really put down roots in America, you have only to look at our labor laws and our minimum wage. Y’all complain about envy, but the fact is, people can afford enough, even on meager minimum wage, that they aren’t so apt to follow the pied pipers of economic equalization.”

That is a divirsion. You didn’t answer.

Posted by: tomd at January 11, 2007 2:55 AM
Comment #202518

When the minimum wage goes up so will the cost of living. When the cost to produce a product goes up so do prices. The only way to stop that is for employers that pay more than minimum wage (and there’s a hole heap more of them than the ones that only pay minimum wage) not to give their employees a raise to keep them above minimum wage. And that will put more folks at the poverty level. Or do y’all that favors a raise in minimum wage think employers shouldn’t make a profit just so their employees can make more money?
So who wins? No one except the politicians who’ll convince the voters that they did them a favor.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 11, 2007 11:10 AM
Comment #202558

If 7.25 per hour is good, then why not go for $20. Surely a family of 4 can’t live on 7.25 per hour

Posted by: tomd at January 11, 2007 12:45 PM
Comment #202620
Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n, Tell me, then, what decides the market?
Supply and demand decides wages. I’m not opposed to the minimum wage, because it won’t hurt or help much, because the market decides wages. Raising the minimum wage won’t have the far reaching impact that some think it will. It never has and never will. Most people already make above the minimum wage, and above the newly proposed minimum wage too. My problem is that it is being done more for political reasons than for true compasion for those at the bottom of the wage scale.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: And who decides the law on illegal aliens and makes sure it’s enforced.
The laws already exist, but the federal and state governments ignore them. Border states are getting hammered, but some interior states are now beginning to get a taste of the problem too. Most Americans polled (71%) want illegal immigration stopped now and most Americans also do not want another amnesty (a.k.a. guest worker program).

Politicians keep ignoring it, and voters are catching on to it, and starting to realize that it is their own politicians that are pitting Americans and illegal aliens against each other. It’s a great mechanism (like partisan warfare) for distracting and dividing the voters.

Democrat incumbent politicians want votes and Republican incumbent politicians want cheap labor, so nothing is ever resolved, as evidenced by this growing list of things that our Do-Nothing CONGRESS refuses to adequately address.

A minimum wage increase is a farce when the borders are wide open and illegal aliens are being imported by the millions to fill those cheap-labor jobs, which displaces an estimated 2.9 million American workers.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: The Democrats will be under some pressure by labor to start doing things for the working class. I’m sure immigration reform is one of them.
Democrats? ? ? Pass immigration reform ? ? ? I’ll believe it when I see it. Unforunately, I’m not sure any of us will live long enough to ever witness it. If Dem or Repub incumbent politicians really cared about the working class, they would stop importing illegal aliens by the millions, start enforcing existing immigration laws, and stop pitting Americans and illegal aliens against each other.

Not to mention the other numerous burdens being foisted upon American citizens.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 11, 2007 3:36 PM
Comment #203322

The US Dept of Agriculture has done a study on the impact of minimum wage increases on prices. Here’s the abstract:

An input-output model is used to analyze price pass-through effects of a minimum wage
increase on prices of the food and kindred products and food-service industries. These
sectors employ a disproportionate share of minimum wage workers, but results suggest
a $0.50 increase in the present minimum wage would increase food prices less than 1
percent for most of the 12 food and kindred products prices and 1 percent at eating and
drinking places.
So a ten percent raise in the minimum wage results in a one percent rise in prices.

What was all that hooha about the dramatic effect of a rise in the minimum wage on prices?

Posted by: ElliottBay at January 15, 2007 11:52 AM
Post a comment