Patterico's Pontifications

12/2/2009

Congress Releases 2010 Calendar

Filed under: Government — DRJ @ 9:17 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

Good news! Congress plans to hardly work at all next year as the members prepare for their re-election campaigns:

“But between Democratic and Republican retreats, House leaders have penciled in only eight working days for the entire month of January. That will be followed by a February composed of only nine full working days.

And with midterm elections looming, Democrats have targeted Friday, Oct. 8 as their final day in session.”

Here’s the complete schedule that includes lots of holidays, 3-day and 4-day workweeks, and October thru December off except for the first week of October.

— DRJ

34 Responses to “Congress Releases 2010 Calendar”

  1. Well, as our libertarian friends remind us, a Congress that is not in session is a Congress that is not passing stupid legislation for the tyro President to sign.

    JVW (0fe413)

  2. A Congress not working means more money for the little people. You know, the ones that are supposed to govern the government?

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  3. All joking aside, the relatively light 2010 calendar would seem to indicate that the Democrats have given up on trying to pass any major legislation in the run-up to the election. It’s especially interesting when you consider that they may be spending part of next year trying to finalize a health care package. I would assume this means that they have given up on Cap and Trade and Stimulus II, at least until they see how the midterm elections turn out. Next spring will probably be spent declaring National Radish Farmers Appreciation Month, holding hearings where the education bureaucracy pleads for more money, and renaming post offices after their former colleagues.

    JVW (0fe413)

  4. Actually, this is a good thing. Mark Twain once said, “No man’s life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session.”

    The literary Dana (3e4784)

  5. Ha you think they don’t work when there’s no session.

    imdw (7c85b9)

  6. Ha you think they don’t work when there’s no session.

    Yes, but they can’t vote when they aren’t in session, so while they might plot ways to take more of my money and use it to buy votes, they can’t actually implement their plans.

    I feel safer already.

    Scott Jacobs (445f98)

  7. Ha you think they don’t work when there’s no session.

    Well, we certainly know that many of them strive mightily to avoid their constituents at all costs, in order to save them the awful reality of the governed expressing their opinions to their elected officials. Watch how they hide when they recess again next month.

    Dmac (a964d5)

  8. I’ve gotta go with those saying this is a good sign as it probably means that they aren’t going to pass any major legislation outside of possibly passing healthcare which, while still bad, would seem to preclude card check and cap and trade.

    john (0d4ddf)

  9. I’ve gotta go with those saying this is a good sign as it probably means that they aren’t going to pass any major legislation outside of possibly passing healthcare which, while still bad, would seem to preclude card check and cap and trade.

    john (0d4ddf)

  10. “Well, we certainly know that many of them strive mightily to avoid their constituents at all costs, in order to save them the awful reality of the governed expressing their opinions to their elected officials. Watch how they hide when they recess again next month.”

    During election years, the session is shorter so they can go back to their districts and campaign. Would you say being in washington or being on recess is “hiding” from their constituents?

    imdw (490521)

  11. So I am guessing, imdw, that you are one of the, what, 27% who approve of Congress?

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html

    I don’t. And the majority of people agree with me.

    Personally, I want to see them work harder, especially in this economy.

    On the other hand, maybe it is best if they don’t work.

    Eric Blair (bc43a4)

  12. Personally, I want to see them work harder, especially in this economy.

    GACK! We would be in much better shape were all of the congresscritters to take a lifetime vacation to the North Pole to save the drowning polar bears and the baby seals.

    JD (4a5c67)

  13. “So I am guessing, imdw, that you are one of the, what, 27% who approve of Congress?”

    Some of them do some things I like. But overall I disapprove of what the House and Senate have done so far.

    imdw (688568)

  14. Not nearly Leftist enough for imdw, Eric.

    JD (4a5c67)

  15. Most people reduce their spending when the economy slows. What does Congress do? Continue to spend like there’s no tomorrow. Perhaps when they’re not voting, they could be looking at ways to trim their own office spending. Maybe fewer donuts and flowers? Perhaps a water filter instead of cases of bottled water?

    Corwin (ea9428)

  16. […] to Patterico’s Pontifications: Here’s the complete schedule that includes lots of holidays, 3-day and 4-day workweeks, and […]

    Sweet Deal for Congress! Will Work Only 8 Days in January, 9 Days in February 2010 « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042)

  17. “Most people reduce their spending when the economy slows. What does Congress do? Continue to spend like there’s no tomorrow. Perhaps when they’re not voting, they could be looking at ways to trim their own office spending. Maybe fewer donuts and flowers? Perhaps a water filter instead of cases of bottled water?”

    Indeed. There’s no better thing when spending is down than to spend even less.

    imdw (c5488f)

  18. My spidey senses detects sarcasm.

    Congress’ job is not to waste tax payer’s money. Frivolous spending does not fix a trillion dollar budget deficit. Congress has been wasting money on a grand scale for decades and it needs to stop. If they want to lead by example, this is the best time to show how.

    Corwin (ea9428)

  19. That is the brilliant analysis we have come to know and love, imdw. That is also the kind of fanciful economic thinking that we have been blessed with, with Barcky’s band of collectivists.

    JD (4a5c67)

  20. Count me also as one of those who think it is for the best for Congress to spend fewer days in session. The less they are in session, the less time they will have to pass bad legislation.

    Joshua (9ede0e)

  21. Hey, imdw:

    “There’s no better thing when spending is down than to spend even less.”

    First, are you seriously claiming that government spending is down? Really?

    If you mean personally, hey, sounds great. Tell you what. Send me a bunch of your money, and then I will waste it on what I want. But I won’t work hard on explaining myself or being responsible. I’ll just tell you that you need to give me more of your money to spend so I can counteract the problems of spending too much of your money.

    Sound okay?

    Paying congresscritters to stay away from roll call votes indeed might be a good idea.

    Also, a “None of the Above” box on ballots.

    Eric Blair (bc43a4)

  22. “First, are you seriously claiming that government spending is down? Really?”

    Uhh. No. See how I quoted this: “Most people reduce their spending when the economy slows”

    imdw (cd4b7a)

  23. imdw would prefer the government spends money on anything – that will crush the recession brought on by the previous administration that was spending too much. Spending more caused problems, spending even more will fix problems. It goes hand-in-hand. Anyone with even a little econ background knows this.

    No need to use your spidey senses to check the above.

    Corwin (ea9428)

  24. “imdw would prefer the government spends money on anything”

    Hell they could just bury it in a mine!

    imdw (6eb217)

  25. Would you say being in washington or being on recess is “hiding” from their constituents?

    Again you ask a question that should be rhetorical in nature – that is, if you had actually viewed the vids of congresscritters running from their constituents last summer when they attempted to ask them questions about their upcoming votes on the healthcare bill. Even worse was those who held alleged “townhall” meetings, where citizens who lived in their congressional districts were turned away in favor of the SEIU goons that were bused in from out – of – state burgs. And even worse than those charades were congressional members actually closing their offices (and sometimes calling the police) during normal business hours when constituents turned up to ask them questions, since they weren’t allowed to ask them any queries previously.

    Seriously, have you been living under a rock the past 6 months, or is obtuseness just a part of your normal MO?

    Dmac (a964d5)

  26. It’s a rather simple question. Do you think members of congress hide while on recess or in washington ? I think the simplest answer is that it really doesn’t matter. They can hide or not hide while in washington, on recess, or whatever.

    imdw (5f60be)

  27. I don’t want to gloat, but it’s looking more and more like health care legislation is finished until the next Democratic presidency.

    Charlie Davis (af958c)

  28. Actually, imdw, given your partisanship (and then your hypocritical denouncements of other people’s partisanship), it is an even simpler question: why do you defend Congress so reflexively?

    And you would do it in a Republican Congress?

    I think everyone knows the answer, including yourself. You can say you weren’t defending them. You betcha.

    Also, imdw…where does government get its money, again? That is still “simpler,” as you put it.

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  29. “Actually, imdw, given your partisanship (and then your hypocritical denouncements of other people’s partisanship), it is an even simpler question: why do you defend Congress so reflexively?”

    What’s the defense here?

    imdw (1635c7)

  30. btw, when i first read this headline, i was scared that it was a congressional swimsuit calender.

    Thank God, i was wrong.

    A.W. (b1db52)

  31. Being intentionally obtuse is the order of the day for imdw. I did get a good chuckle when it complained that someone would not answer its simple question, since that is SOP for it.

    JD (a58f1d)

  32. JD, it’s just asking questions, is all.

    Dmac (a964d5)

  33. Near as I can see imdw’s point comes down to-

    Money spent by Republican – BAD

    Money spent by Democrat – GOOD

    If Bush had a 160 billion dollar deficit that proves he was a spendthrift, Obama’s 1.4 trillion dollar deficit proves he is fiscally responsible.

    After all, 1.4 is a lot less than 160 – right?

    Have Blue (854a6e)

  34. “If Bush had a 160 billion dollar deficit that proves he was a spendthrift, Obama’s 1.4 trillion dollar deficit proves he is fiscally responsible.”

    Bush did add spending without paying for it — but that’s ok, everyone should get to do that. In general i think we should be running deficits when times are bad and not running then when times are good. And if we are to be running deficits when times are bad, we should be doing it based on high multiplier policies.

    imdw (490521)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4567 secs.