While people often complain about a Do-Nothing Congress, massive staff reductions inside the Capitol could make that truer than ever before.
The day-to-day business of congressional offices and committees — from constituent service to hearings and investigations — is largely on hold, as House Republicans and Senate Democrats stalemate over a budget agreement.
Many offices are running with only a fraction of their usual staff, forcing lawmakers to prioritize what gets done and employees to struggle against gargantuan workloads.
“The enemy of productivity is fear and anxiety,” said Robert Tobias, a professor at American University’s School of Public Affairs. “It’s very difficult to get anything done when you’re stretched thin and anxious about whether you are going to be paid.”
Scenes of exactly that played out all over the Capitol, as lawmakers revealed how their offices and committees would manage the shutdown. The choice of who is deemed essential and who is furloughed is left to each individual member. The same goes for committees, where the chair and ranking member decide.
According to guidance issued by the House Administration Committee, essential employees are those whose jobs are “associated with the constitutional responsibilities, the protection of life, or the protection of property.” There is no requirement as to how many employees each office needs to furlough, although offices do incur a debt for staff work, which will presumably be paid once the government is funded again.
Lawmakers addressed the situation differently. Offices for Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Chris Murphy, for example, had signs up saying they were closed, with phone numbers to call. Others, such as that of Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., were open with some staff inside.
Committees, too, were a mixed bag. The House Oversight Committee continued with its scheduled hearing Tuesday, which turned out to be first day of the shutdown. But the House Judiciary Committee postponed full committee markups and Immigration Subcommittee hearings.
One common complaint was how to address the large volume of calls and constituent mail that comes in daily. “Productivity has suffered,” said one Senate aide, whose office shrank from 29 staffers and interns to just eight. “Letters aren’t getting responded to and are piling up. We’re monitoring phone messages, but we’re not answering the phones.”
In some cases, however, the lack of staff made for good optics. Sen. Joe Manchin’s staff, for example, sent out a photo of him answering his own phones. A walk over to the office revealed the West Virginia Democrat at a receptionist’s desk, chatting away as reporters and cameras watched.
Manchin’s office received about 200 voice mails from constituents Tuesday, many wanting to know whether various social services were still available. They got another 200 calls Wednesday. So when Manchin arrived at his office around 9:45 a.m. and heard the phones ringing, he sat down and picked up — and he kept going as people in suits arrived for scheduled meetings.
“They’re upset, truly upset,” Manchin told National Journal Daily, describing the constituents who called. “They’re scared and upset. And this is self-inflicted pain. I just apologize. I am a member of Congress, and I apologize for this unnecessary shutdown.”
What We're Following See More »
Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:
- Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
- Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
- They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
- One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”
Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”
The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”
At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”