Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Congress may be broken – but it’s not lazy

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.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

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

Washington, DC, skyline
John Baggaley/Getty Images

Restoring trust in government: The vital role of public servants

This past year has proven politically historic and unprecedented. In this year alone, we witnessed:

  • The current president, who received the most votes in American history when elected four years ago, drop out of the presidential race at the last minute due to party pressure amid unceasing rumors of cognitive decline.
  • The vice president, who was selected as the party-preferred candidate in his stead, fail to win a single battleground state despite an impressive array of celebrity endorsements, healthy financial backing and overwhelmingly positive media coverage.
  • The former president, who survived two assassination attempts — one leading to an iconic moment that some would swear was staged while others argued Godly intervention — decisively win the election, securing both popular and Electoral College vote victories to serve a second term, nonconsecutively (something that hasn’t happened since Grover Cleveland in the 1890s).

Many of us find ourselves craving more precedented times, desiring a return to some semblance of normalcy, hoping for some sense of unity, and envisioning a nation where we have some sense of trust and confidence in our government and those who serve in it.

Keep ReadingShow less
Tents in a park

Tents encampment in Chicago's Humboldt Park.

Amalia Huot-Marchand

Officials and nonprofits seek solutions for Chicago’s housing crisis

Elected city officials and nonprofit organizations in Chicago have come together to create affordable housing for homeless, low-income and migrant residents in the city’s West Side.

So far, solutions include using tax increment financing and land trusts to help fund affordable housing.

Keep ReadingShow less
Woman holding her head in her hands in front of her computer

A woman watches Vice President Kamala Harris' concession speech on Nov. 6 after Donald Trump secured enough voters to win a second term in the White House.

Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images

Political grief: A U.S. epidemic stimulated by Project 2025

When most people think about grief, they associate it with the death of a loved one. They reflect on past memories, shared experiences and precious moments of life. It is natural for one to yearn for the past, the comfort and safety of familiar times and stability. Now, with the promise of a second term for Donald Trump and the suggested implementation of Project 2025, thousands of U.S. citizens are anticipating a state of oppression driven by the proposition of drastic, authoritarian political policies.
Keep ReadingShow less
Woman's hand showing red thumbs up and blue thumbs down on illustrated green background
PM Images/Getty Images

Why a loyal opposition is essential to democracy

When I was the U.S. ambassador to Equatorial Guinea, a small, African nation, the long-serving dictator there routinely praised members of the “loyal opposition.” Serving in the two houses of parliament, they belonged to pseudo-opposition parties that voted in lock-step with the ruling party. Their only “loyalty” was to the country’s brutal dictator, who remains in power. He and his cronies rig elections, so these “opposition” politicians never have to fear being voted out of office.

In contrast, the only truly independent party in the country is regularly denounced by the dictator and his ruling party as the “radical opposition.” Its leaders and members are harassed, often imprisoned on false charges and barred from government employment. This genuine opposition party has no representatives at either the national or local level despite considerable popular support. In dictatorships, there can be no loyal opposition.

Keep ReadingShow less