It’s the silly season again. Aspiring candidates from both parties in hot pursuit of the “golden goose,” in this case a chance to snag one of the congressional seats (435 house seats and 35 senate seats) up for grabs in November. With the election about two months away and hotly contested primaries taking place right now, promises from hopeful candidates festoon the airwaves. These promises come in all shapes and sizes—”I am fighting for you” “I will ban congressional stock trading, lower the cost of housing and healthcare, make the wealthy pay their fair share, refuse corporate PAC money” are oft-repeated promises from democratic candidates. When the campaigns end, so do the promises. Case in point: Zohran Mamdani, who became New York’s mayor partly on his promise to enact a wealth tax. He was barely installed when he walked back that promise substituting the lame resolve to tax only the second homes of rich residents (“pied-a-terre” tax).
Running for congress is no walk in the park. Making promises you have no intention of keeping (Obama is the poster boy for that little scam) is the easiest part of the job. Fundraising is the hardest. In between are the endless “rubber chicken” dinners, the never-ending “meet and greets,” and all the other excruciating public performances that come with the territory. Which begs the question —what’s in it for the winners?
How would you like to have a “job” that suggests (not requires) you to show up less than half the yearly work days (48% or 119 days of 250 yearly work days). Pretty cushy yes? That applies if you are one of the 435 members of the House of Representatives. The downside is a two-year election cycle so that as soon as you win, you must start running again You have to work a little (not much) harder if you are a senator. The Senate is open 158 days (63% of the yearly work days). To compensate for such a shocking level of activity, their term extends six years.
Compare that with the average American working stiff, blue or white collar, who is required (not optional) to work 235-240 days every year. Of course, there are exceptions. Public and private school teachers work around 190 days, the length of the average school year. But they pay for it with low-ball average salaries of $60,000 to $67,000. For members of Congress whose work schedule is one-third to one quarter shorter, the base salary ix $174,000. If you happen to be in what Congress considers the leadership elite, your salary is bumped up to $193,000 or even a ludicrous $223,500 (Speaker of the House). In a grand gesture of virtue signaling, since 2009, Congress has declined cost of living increases (although it is worth noting that unlike working Americans mired in the capitalist economy, Congress sets its own salaries.) Keep in mind that since 73% of senators and almost of half of representatives (49%) have a net worth of $1 million+, foregoing a raise does not have a measurable effect on their comfortable lives. Contrast that with the plight of over one-third of Americans (37%) who can’t afford an emergency expense over $400.
With these facts in mind, how to explain those current (and former) members of congress who have filed suit for damages arguing that without the cost of living (COLA) yearly increases that since 2009 the congress has voted to decline, their salaries are unconstitutionally suppressed One of the plaintiffs, Steny Hoyer, has a net worth of $4 million. If they win, guess who is on the hook for retroactive pay raises, including for former members and also higher pension benefits? The total could easily exceed $100 million. Once again, the “servants of the people” look to their constituents to take on this added burden. Does greed ever take a holiday? Not in the U.S. Congress.
Here are some of the other Congressional perks taxpayers are on the hook for. A particularly galling one goes by the innocuous name of death gratuity payments. This nifty little scheme gives the heirs of members who die while in office a tax-free gift of one year of the member’s salary. Since one-third of the senate (36 members) is age 70 or older with one Senator (Chuck Grassley) aged 91 and 20% of the House 70+ (24 members of both houses are 80 or older), no doubt that perk will be used frequently. A recent example — Senator Lindsay Graham died July 11. Although his net worth was $1.4 million, his heirs will still get his year’s salary —$174,000 tax free. For the last 25 years since 2000 that boondoggle has cost taxpayers a stunning $7 million.
Hard as it is to believe, that’s peanuts compared to the perks living members of Congress are “entitled to” as “servants of the people.” One biggie is the “franking privilege” (a real boon at election time when lawmakers can mail anything to the people they represent or anyone else without paying postage) There’s lots more. Read and weep—insurance: both health and life. You pay for 75% of their health insurance (when they’re not getting it for $54 per month from the Office of the Attending Physician (the OAP cost taxpayers $5 million per year). For Congress people who have been living large on the taxpayers’ dime for decades (think Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Grassley), their luxurious life is chock full of free limousine rides, to die for choice parking spots on Capitol Hill and at the airport. At taxpayers’ expense they can take junkets to far-flung locations (as long as it can be considered “official” congressional travel which it always is). It goes without saying that travel to their home districts is another perk— considered a must for “hard-working” members of Congress. Lest we forget to mention it, members have their own private, palatial health club complete with gym facilities and a wide range of taxpayer-funded fine (aka expensive) furnishings to spruce up their various offices.
Right about now you might be scratching your head, doing finger math trying to figure out how much this is costing you. Get ready for it: the total taxpayers are going to be soaked to fund Congress in 2026 is $7.1billion — $7.3 billion.
What do we get for trudging to the polls every two years besides lightening our wallets by over $7 billion? Has either house of Congress proposed a bill for the problems most Americans agree need fixing like U.S. aggression against Iran (a possible war crime) and its consequences: the U.S. economy in crisis. Skyrocketing prices (gas now over $4 per gallon) and rising inflation which has outpaced wage growth. Americans daily feel the pain of economic inequality, healthcare costs out of control leaving almost 3 million without health insurance, higher education that most Americans cannot afford (total student debt is almost $2 trillion), and lack of affordable housing.
Maybe we’re being too critical. Maybe the 48% of the yearly work days that the House is in session and the 63% that the Senate works has made a difference. Let’s hear how a perennial cheerleader for the political morass in Washington sees it. The 119th U.S. Congress had a historically low legislative output during its initial session in 2025, passing fewer than 40 substantive bills into law… [The Washington Post]. Despite that less than rave review, Congress is not totally bereft of ideas. A perennial favorite — reducing the deficit by cutting various benefits and services for the American people.
What can the people do about it? Here’s an idea. Make Congress a part time job. When you add up their accomplishments over the years, what do you get? A part-time level of activity masquerading as a full-time gig. There is a precedent for making the U.S. legislative body part-time. From the first Congressional session in 1789 through the 1930s, the House and Senate usually convened in December and adjourned in the spring. [“…There were years in the 1800s where Congress ran budget surpluses because they didn’t have anything to spend money on.” Jason Roberts, University of North Carolina.]
There’s an idea with wings.
