Home / Congress
Showing posts with label Congress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Congress. Show all posts
Ranking Congressmen and Senators with the Flesch-Kincaid test to use of longer words and longer sentences

Ranking Congressmen and Senators with the Flesch-Kincaid test to use of longer words and longer sentences

The Sunlight Foundation has provided its data available here. A higher score doesn't necessarily mean that someone is smarter, as politicians may be speaking so that their constituents or at least a greater percentage of their constituents understand what they are saying. It might be interesting to see how their Flesch-Kincaid scores line up with the education levels of their congressional districts.
Overall, the complexity of speech in the Congressional Record has declined steadily since 2005, with the drop among Republicans slightly outpacing that for Democrats (see Figure 1). Through April 25, 2012, this year's Congressional Record clocks in at a 10.6 grade level, down from 11.5 in 2005.

Between 1996 and 2005, Republicans overall spoke at consistently 2/10ths of a grade level higher than Democrats, except for 2001, when a rare moment of national unity also seems to have extended to speaking at the same grade level. But following 2005, something happened, and Congressional speech has been on the decline since. For Republicans as a whole, the decline was from an 11.6 grade level to a 10.3 grade level in 2011 (up slightly to 10.4 in 2012 so far). For Democrats, it was a decline from 11.4 to 10.6 in 2011 (also up slightly to 10.8 in 2012 so far.) . . .

One possibility for the changing scores may simply be whether someone is in the majority. For example, the word "compromise" is apparently a word that a politician gains points from using. I assume that someone in the majority is more likely to use that word. Other words such as "compassion," "reconciliation," "inevitable," and "lobbyist" are also big point words. It would be interesting to see if the type of language used varies with whether one is in the majority or minority. As noted in the quote above, the party in power seems to get higher Flesch-Kincaid scores.
Defeated Congressional Democrats gave big payday to staffers

Defeated Congressional Democrats gave big payday to staffers

With the deficit running at $1.65 trillion this year, just something to keep in mind.

Departing members of the House of Representatives awarded millions of dollars in extra pay to aides as they closed down their offices, according to lawmakers' spending records.

The 96 lawmakers paid their employees $6.7 million, or 31%, more in the fourth quarter of 2010 than they did, on average, in the first three quarters of the year.

That's about twice as much as the 16% increase awarded by lawmakers who returned to the 112th Congress, according to LegiStorm, an organization that tracks congressional salaries.

The disparity suggests retiring or defeated members used remaining funds in their official expenses budgets to boost salaries for staffers before they left Washington, cash that might otherwise have been returned to the U.S. Treasury.

Lawmakers interviewed for this article say aides work hard for smaller salaries than they could earn elsewhere, and that modest bonuses are one way of offering a reward. Some said they wanted to help employees as they look for new jobs.

Because most of the departing members were Democrats, fourth-quarter salary increases in 2010 for Democratic staffers were the largest in the decade LegiStorm has been gathering such data. . . .
What congressional debate was meant to look like

What congressional debate was meant to look like

A more open process probably also means that fewer bills will get passed.

It wasn’t pretty, it wasn’t on schedule and it wasn’t the least bit predictable.
But it was pure Boehner.
Long before he took the reins of the House Jan. 5, Boehner began promising that he would bring the House back to its more freewheeling roots. Over five days, there was confusion — even mayhem — on the floor as freshmen learned the legislative process and veterans dusted off their debating skills. . . .
Even some veteran Democrats praised what was the most open and sprawling floor fight the House had seen in years.
“After as little openness as we’ve had, it’s a very big change. It’s refreshing, and I think it’s a good thing,” said Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), the dean of the House and a member of Congress since 1955. “We’ll see whether the members like it.” . . .

Stories on Congressional jets indicate that more is being spent on Congressional Travel

Have the Democrats learned anything from the existing financial problems?

Have the Democrats learned anything from the existing financial problems?

From the Washington Times: Robbing the bank: Congress has its way with financial institutions

Some risks don't pay off. The time comes when the right thing to do is to let a bad investment sink. This is more responsible than continuing to throw good money after bad to keep unwise ventures afloat. For the housing market to turn around, bad mortgages must be allowed to sink -- but Congress has other plans.

Rep. Barney Frank, Massachusetts Democrat, is threatening to revive legislation that would let bankruptcy judges rewrite mortgage contracts if banks don't "voluntarily" write off a larger percentage of bad home loans. The policy ideas of the savvy chairman of the House Financial Services Committee should be taken seriously.

Mr. Frank was among the politicians who pushed for changes in underwriting standards over the past decade. Those new rules involved eliminating verification of income or assets and virtually eliminating down payments to get a house. Those modifications greatly contributed to the current financial crisis. There was a seemingly noble goal in loosening lending standards to increase homeownership among poor and minority Americans, but the changes created a time bomb that was set off as soon as property values began to decline. . . .
Congress is having trouble making expense accounts public

Congress is having trouble making expense accounts public

The WSJ has this.

Members of Congress said Thursday that details of their expense claims wouldn't be posted online before mid-November at the earliest -- two and a half months later than the deadline previously set for publishing them in an electronic format for the first time.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ordered the House Chief Administrative Officer to put information about expenses claimed by members of the House on the Internet "at the earliest date," in an announcement reversing a longstanding policy of providing the information only in books totaling about 12,000 pages a year. The chief administrative officer, a congressional employee, set an Aug. 31 deadline. The Senate hasn't announced any plans to put its expenses claims online.

The announcement last month followed a series of Wall Street Journal articles on bonus payments and expense claims for luxury cars and high-end technology made by congressional offices. . . .


According to another article in the WSJ, the costs that are being report are much lower than the true costs.

The travel-disclosure form the Pennsylvania Democrat filed for the trip reported the seven-country tour with his wife, an aide and two military officials on a private military jet cost $571 a person, or a total of about $2,800.

The real cost was far higher, in excess of $70,000, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis.

Mr. Specter's travel report is one of scores of examples of the gap between the expenditures congressional delegations are required to report and what the trips actually cost taxpayers.

A Journal analysis of 60,000 travel records shows that lawmakers disclosed spending about $13 million in 2008 on overseas congressional delegations, or codels. That is nearly a tenfold increase since 1995, the analysis shows.

But the total tab disclosed by Congress is only a fraction of the true cost to taxpayers, according to the Journal's analysis.

Under a 1970s law that authorizes taxpayer-funded codels, lawmakers only must disclose how much they spent on lodging, meals, ground transportation and other incidental expenses. Members of Congress also must make public their spending on commercial airfare, though most lawmakers fly on military planes, which don't have to be disclosed.

Mr. Specter's disclosure form reports that he spent $1,103 for food and accommodations. The aide that accompanied him spent $1,750, according to the disclosure form. The cost of food, hotels and transportation for the two military officials was not disclosed.

Kate Kelly, a spokeswoman for Mr. Specter, said her boss "meticulously complies with Senate reporting requirements, reimburses the Treasury with unused per diem, and customarily files an extensive trip report describing the substance of his meetings with foreign officials." She added that the cost of codels is a "good investment considering the insights gained on billions of dollars of foreign aid." . . .
Congressional travel expenditures have risen by 50 percent in two years

Congressional travel expenditures have risen by 50 percent in two years

There hae been a huge increase in other things such as franking privileges over the last two years as well. From the WSJ:

Hundreds of lawmakers traveled overseas in 2008 at a cost of about $13 million. That's a 50% jump since Democrats took control of Congress two years ago.

The cost of so-called congressional delegations, known among lawmakers as "codels," has risen nearly 70% since 2005, when an influence-peddling scandal led to a ban on travel funded by lobbyists, according to the data. . . .
Democrats plan lots of spending to help Dems win re-election next year

Democrats plan lots of spending to help Dems win re-election next year

From Roll Call:

The House wants to increase Members’ office budgets next fiscal year by almost 15 percent, partly because 2010 is an election year and lawmakers anticipate a surge in franked mail.

In a recently released budget request, the House Chief Administrative Officer asked appropriators to raise the Members’ Representational Allowances — which fund everything needed to run offices, including salaries, travel and supplies — by $90 million, citing increases “due to the election year cycle.”

“In an election year the expenditures increase and then decrease in a non-election year,” the request reads.

Increases for most expenses are usually modest from year to year, accounting mostly for inflation and cost-of-living adjustments. But during election years, some accounts get a big bump.

The fiscal 2010 request includes an extra $16 million for franked mail — an 80 percent increase from fiscal 2009. The stated reason: Members send more mail to their constituents during an election year. . . . .


Ironically, the UK's MPs are undergoing their own scandal with expenses.

The public's view of MPs has been badly damaged by a series of revelations about expenses claims, a new survey has revealed. . . . .
Why do voters blame the Republicans in Congress and not the Democrats for Congress' problems

Why do voters blame the Republicans in Congress and not the Democrats for Congress' problems

If you look at these polls from the NY Times, congress has become increasingly unpopular over the last two years, but people are blaming the Republicans and not the Democrats. Weird, given that that was also the time over which the Democrats have controlled congress. Some how people need to educate voters that the Democrats have been in control of congress.
One Reason Congressional Approval Ratings Might be So Low: Earmark Promises Broken

One Reason Congressional Approval Ratings Might be So Low: Earmark Promises Broken

The Washington Post reports:

More than a year after Congress pledged to curb pork barrel funding known as earmarks, lawmakers are gearing up for another spending binge, directing billions toward organizations and companies in their home districts.

Earmark spending in the House's defense authorization bill alone soared 29 percent last month, from $7.7 billion last year to $9.9 billion now, according to data compiled by Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan watchdog group in the District. The Senate bill has not been approved, but the proposal includes an increased number of earmarks, although for a slightly lesser total cost.

Lawmakers had promised to cut back on earmarks and mandated better disclosure of them after steady criticism that they were funding programs with little debate or oversight. The promises led to an initial decline in earmarks last year that was trumpeted on Capitol Hill. But the new data show that they are surging again, at least in the proposed Pentagon authorization budget, which sets out priorities to be funded in a later appropriations bill. . . . .
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)