Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Congress may be broken – but it’s not lazy

Opinion

US Capitol

According to Congressional Management Foundation research, members of Congress average at least 60 hours of work per week.

Andrey Denisyuk/Getty Images

Fitch is the president & CEO of the Congressional Management Foundation and a former congressional staffer.

Americans have such a negative view of Congress in part because they are fed a steady diet of bad news about their lawmakers, and not all of it accurate. There are certainly an enormous host of problems plaguing the institution. But accusing your member of Congress of being “lazy” is neither fair nor accurate.

This sentiment was prompted by a headline: “ Mad at UPS Workers Making $170,000? Congress Makes More and Works Less.” The article assessed congressional work as only the time the full chamber was in session – which is only a fraction of the work done by elected officials. This makes as much sense as assessing the work of a television reporter by counting how many hours she’s on air. In fact, Congressional Management Foundation research shows that while lawmakers work on average 70 hours a week when Congress is in session, they work close to 60 hours a week during recesses, or district work periods.


Most Americans have a fairly negative and justified opinion on how Congress performs. However, America rarely sees the full scope of Congress at work. Most of the work members of Congress perform is not in front of television cameras. In Washington they spend most of their time doing exactly what you would want them doing: legislative activity, such as attending hearings or working with colleagues. The majority of their time back home is spent on constituent activities: either meeting with groups of constituents or visiting local companies, nonprofits, and schools in their community.

Another surprising finding of the research on how federal legislators spend their time was the discovery that the majority of Representatives do not spend a lot of time fundraising for their campaigns. Lawmakers in tough re-election campaigns or in the House or Senate leadership spend an inordinate amount of time collecting donations, but that represents about 5 percent of Congress. The vast majority of members of Congress spend five to 10 hours a week on “political activities,” either raising money for their own campaigns, holding campaign events or supporting their colleagues.

Some years ago the Rasmussen polling company asked in a national survey if the public agreed with this statement: “Most members of Congress care what their constituents think.” Only 11 percent agreed with that statement. Yet, when members of the House of Representatives were asked in a survey what was the most important aspect of their job, the top answer, noted by 95 percent of respondents, was “Staying in touch with constituents.” Politicians cite both ethical and political reasons for maintaining a firm understanding of public opinion in their states. Lawmakers genuinely want to understand the nuance of public policy and how their decisions could affect their constituents.

For years I supervised interns who worked on Capitol Hill. At the end of their three-month stints, I always asked the same question: “What belief or stereotype about Washington and Congress was debunked during your time here?” The most common answer went something like this: “I was surprised at how much you people wrestle with trying to figure out the right thing to do, and how much you worry about the impact of your decisions on constituents.”

If you spend a little time in the real Washington – not the one you see on the front pages of newspapers or in the movies – you’ll come to the same conclusion.

Read More

Yes, They Are Trying To Kill Us
Provided

Yes, They Are Trying To Kill Us

In the rush to “dismantle the administrative state,” some insist that freeing people from “burdensome bureaucracy” will unleash thriving. Will it? Let’s look together.

A century ago, bureaucracy was minimal. The 1920s followed a worldwide pandemic that killed an estimated 17.4–50 million people. While the virus spread, the Great War raged; we can still picture the dehumanizing use of mustard gas and trench warfare. When the war ended, the Roaring Twenties erupted as an antidote to grief. Despite Prohibition, life was a party—until the crash of 1929. The 1930s opened with a global depression, record joblessness, homelessness, and hunger. Despair spread faster than the pandemic had.

Keep ReadingShow less
Millions Could Lose Housing Aid Under Trump Plan

Photo illustration by Alex Bandoni/ProPublica. Source images: Chicago History Museum and eobrazy

Getty Images

Millions Could Lose Housing Aid Under Trump Plan

Some 4 million people could lose federal housing assistance under new plans from the Trump administration, according to experts who reviewed drafts of two unpublished rules obtained by ProPublica. The rules would pave the way for a host of restrictions long sought by conservatives, including time limits on living in public housing, work requirements for many people receiving federal housing assistance and the stripping of aid from entire families if one member of the household is in the country illegally.

The first Trump administration tried and failed to implement similar policies, and renewed efforts have been in the works since early in the president’s second term. Now, the documents obtained by ProPublica lay out how the administration intends to overhaul major housing programs that serve some of the nation’s poorest residents, with sweeping reforms that experts and advocates warn will weaken the social safety net amid historically high rents, home prices and homelessness.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump’s Ultimatums and the Erosion of Presidential Credibility

Donald Trump

YouTube

Trump’s Ultimatums and the Erosion of Presidential Credibility

On Friday, October 3rd, President Donald Trump issued a dramatic ultimatum on Truth Social, stating this is the “LAST CHANCE” for Hamas to accept a 20-point peace proposal backed by Israel and several Arab nations. The deadline, set for Sunday at 6:00 p.m. EDT, was framed as a final opportunity to avoid catastrophic consequences. Trump warned that if Hamas rejected the deal, “all HELL, like no one has ever seen before, will break out against Hamas,” and that its fighters would be “hunted down and killed.”

Ordinarily, when a president sets a deadline, the world takes him seriously. In history, Presidential deadlines signal resolve, seriousness, and the weight of executive authority. But with Trump, the pattern is different. His history of issuing ultimatums and then quietly backing off has dulled the edge of his threats and raised questions about their strategic value.

Keep ReadingShow less
From Fragility to Resilience: Fixing America’s Economic and Political Fault Lines

fractured foundation and US flag

AI generated

From Fragility to Resilience: Fixing America’s Economic and Political Fault Lines

This series began with a simple but urgent question: What’s gone wrong with America’s economic policies, and how can we begin to fix them? The story so far has revealed not only financial instability but also deeper structural weaknesses that leave families, small businesses, and entire communities far more vulnerable than they should be.

In the first two articles, “Running on Empty” and “Crash Course,” we examined how middle-class families, small businesses, and retirees are increasingly caught in a web of debt and financial uncertainty. We also examined how Wall Street’s speculative excesses, deregulation, and shadow banking have pushed the financial system to the brink. Finally, we warned that Donald Trump’s economic agenda doesn’t address these problems—it magnifies them. Together, these earlier articles painted a picture of a system skating on thin ice, where even small shocks could trigger widespread crisis.

Keep ReadingShow less