November 25, 2010
Bobby Jindal: Make Congress Part Time
Gov Jindal of Louisiana puts forth this excellent proposal in an interview with former Rhode Islander and current Human Events editor Jason Mattera. Amazingly, it doesn't even appear to be unconstitutional as the Constitution does not specify the duration of a Congressional session.
A determination of what comprises "part time" would have to be made. One month per year sounds good to me but I'm open to other suggestions. Under this proposal, members of Congress need not worry about a loss of base remuneration. They would keep their current salaries because, as Jindal points out,
We used to pay farmers not to grow crops
Similarly, we'd be a lot better off if we paid Congress not to legislate.
Concurrently, congressional staffing levels would have to be cut way back. There'd be no point in making our elected representatives part time if a full-time, non-elected bureaucracy remains in the Capitol to make mischief that can be swiftly gaveled into law when the witching month arrives.
Sounds like a good idea. It is worth remembering that New Hampshire's legislators only work for a month. Last I knew of, it waspractically volunteer. Seems to me the pay was $300.00.
I am not well versed in constitutional matters and am unsure what can be done when congress is not in session. But, I think it is quite a lot.
Posted by: Warrington Faust at November 25, 2010 8:39 PMI agree, they spend too much time doing business for themselves at our expense. The less we see and hear from them, the better.
Posted by: Kathy at November 26, 2010 12:24 PMRemember - we pay our legislative staff for full time work here in Rhode Island, though we only have part-time legislators ourselves!
Posted by: Dan at November 26, 2010 9:33 PM