Why Are We Paying For Congresspeople's Gym Memberships?
Mark Steyn brings up a great point in relation to some of the shots of Weiner's weiner, and that point is, "Why should Anthony Weiner be provided with a taxpayer-funded gym to crotch-grab in?"
If the Board of Selectmen of my small town in New Hampshire were to propose a taxpayer-funded municipal gym, there would be an uproar at Town Meeting and they'd all be voted out of office. Same for every town in this state, I'd wager - and even over the river in Vermont, too. What then is it about being a national legislator that makes a taxpayer-funded gym apparently entirely non-risible?Nothing. Except that it's just another of a trillion-and-one public expenditures from federally-funded cowboy poetry to federally-funded experiments on the effects of meth and cocaine on menstruating monkeys. To modify Stalin, one waste of taxpayer money is a fiscal tragedy, a million of them is a rounding error.
I don't think Congressman Weiner should have a federal bathhouse to auto-snap his towel in. In fact, I believe there's a direct line between the existence of a House gym and the likes of Anthony Weiner. When the people accept that the political class has the right to send them the bill for an activity that every other American has to make private provision for, it's telling you something about the relationship between the citizenry and their rulers.
I don't think taxpayers should pay for it. I think when you work for the taxpayers, you shouldn't get a lot of the perks they currently get. But a lot of companies either have gyms or pay towards employees gym memberships as health initiatives. DH's does.
momof4 at June 16, 2011 5:33 AM
You have influence on exactly one Representative and two Senators. The game is rigged, and we lose.
MarkD at June 16, 2011 6:33 AM
I think what most of those congresspeople (forgive the political correctness) are forgetting is that politics, in and of itself, isn't supposed to be a career. The practice of politics isn't supposed to used for exploitation. We, the people, are being exploited and manipulated by the people who are supposed to be acting in our best interests, not theirs.
Oh and it looks like Weiner IS going to step down. Smartest thing he's done since marrying his wife.
Flynne at June 16, 2011 7:54 AM
Yes, I am getting tired of hearing about the nobility of public service, when said service includes higher remuneration and percs than are afforded to those one is serving.
Public service? Go volunteer in a soup kitchen, pick up trash on a highway or public area, or even enlist for a few years in the military. Just don't spend a bunch of somebody else's money to get elected to an office that gives you a big pile of cash and allowances, retirement and health care for life, and yes, gym memberships.
Don't tell me about the "sacrifices" of public service, unless you're really making them.
BillC at June 16, 2011 8:07 AM
At first, I thought that Representatives and Senators were putting themselves in a bubble away from the public, but on second thought, it serves a valuable purpose. Since it's Washington, the only people they're insulating themselves from are lobbyists. There are no constituents to avoid in DC. So, I don't begrudge them a Congressional fitness center.
Tyler at June 16, 2011 10:12 AM
Tyler, you're being facetious, right? (Please say you're being fecetious!)
Flynne at June 16, 2011 10:23 AM
Sorry, fAcetious. Although maybe that is feces you're throwing around.
Flynne at June 16, 2011 10:24 AM
Yeah, I'd like to see Weiner whip out the camera in a Gold's Gym locker room and see if he escapes intact.
Your gym: "WTF, a-hole, gimme that camera!"
Their gym: "Would you like a boy or girl Page today, Sir? Neither? You'd prefer to admire and photograph yourself? As you wish, Sir. A taxpayer will be along to mop up when you're finished."
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at June 16, 2011 11:38 AM
Get over it.
It might help calm the seething outrage if you had a few facts straight...like Congress isn't the only organization in the world that provides a gym for the employees. The VA in my area has one. And guess who's paying for it?
A multidisciplinary clinic I used to work at also provided a gym used for physical rehabilitation...which we were perfectly free to use during lunch breaks and after hours. I also worked at a YMCA, which of course, provided a gym which I could use during my time off. While in graduate school, I worked at a major resort that had a gym that I, as a full-time employee, had full use of.
So, Congress has a gym? Color me unsurprised...In fact, color me "couldn't care less."
Patrick at June 16, 2011 11:58 AM
Oh, and regarding the suggestion about joining the military...they have gyms, too. And all kinds of fun things to do, arts and crafts, even. And we're footing the bill. In fact, as a veteran, I'm free to use the gym at my local V.A...we're paying for that, too.
Patrick at June 16, 2011 12:04 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/06/16/why_are_we_payi.html#comment-2273654">comment from PatrickIf you're a rehab worker, I have no problem with you using the gym during lunch breaks (you're not using up the machines, I presume, and the gym is financed for the patients).
The days of providing employee gyms on the taxpayer dollar need to end now.
If you're a veteran in need of rehab, on the other hand, I think we owe you top-notch facilities and care.
Amy Alkon at June 16, 2011 12:04 PM
I think they should get their exercise by running the streets of DC. When they get mugged, they'll begin to realize just how great Federal control and micromanagement works in the real world.
MarkD at June 16, 2011 12:15 PM
I consider having a gym to be a valuable perk of one's employment. I would never begrudge people who get that with their job. If I could lobotomize my conscience, I'd probably run for office just to get the gym.
Patrick at June 16, 2011 12:22 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/06/16/why_are_we_payi.html#comment-2273677">comment from PatrickThese days, having a job is something to be grateful for. People should pay for their own gym memberships. If corporations want to offer perks, fine. The fact that I'll be working in a donut shop at 90 to pay public sector employees' pensions is perk enough, and then some. (I just read in the LA Times that California lifeguards can retire at 51 with a $108K a year pension, leading me to believe that California, for many decades, has been populated by millions of morons who have no ability for simple math.)
Amy Alkon at June 16, 2011 12:24 PM
A gym certainly is a valuable perk of employment. Here in America, our company now charges employees to use the previously-free gym.
I'm not a Congressperson. I pay for their gym, and then I pay for my gym.
Sweet deal for the wealthy and powerful.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at June 16, 2011 12:52 PM
No, I wasn't being fascetious, Flynne. Would you rather they work out at a private club as the guest of a well-funded lobbyist? Why begrudge your Congressman an hour every day where he can turn off his phone and hit the weights/treadmill?
If anything, you should begrudge Congressmen their platinum-plated health plan.
Tyler at June 16, 2011 2:07 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/06/16/why_are_we_payi.html#comment-2273846">comment from TylerWhy begrudge your Congressman an hour every day where he can turn off his phone and hit the weights/treadmill?
Why should taxpayers pay for that?
Amy Alkon at June 16, 2011 2:13 PM
Tyler, excellent points. Personally, I'd rather congress have the arrangement they have now. And you're absolutely right about the health plan.
Patrick at June 16, 2011 2:15 PM
Amy, would you rather they work out in private clubs, where not only can they be the guests of lobbyists, but approached by anyone? One way or another, Amy, you'll pay for it. We'll either let them keep the arrangement they have, or they'll pay themselves and vote themselves another 100% pay raise that much sooner, the rising costs of health club memberships as one more justification...like they need more.
Patrick at June 16, 2011 2:18 PM
I just can't feel that this is a silly thing to worry about, especially, as Tyler points out, the health care plan they have is certain to cost much more and is far better than we'll have, even if we do pay for it.
It reminds me of when Obama was first elected. Someone on a message board I visit was making threads complaining about Obama's mother-in-law living in the White House. So, what?
Patrick at June 16, 2011 2:27 PM
And what about rides on private jets? Last year, Barney Frank accepted a free flight to the US Virgin Islands from a hedge fund manager with the prior approval of the House Ethics Committee. That kind of thing bothers me. I'd rather he'd abused his travel budget for this personal trip than take a gift from someone who works in an industry he helps oversee.
Let's look at the bigger picture. Taking bribes that could affect American investors to the tune of billions is far worse than abusing an expense account for thousands.
Tyler at June 16, 2011 2:48 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/06/16/why_are_we_payi.html#comment-2273931">comment from TylerI'd rather he'd abused his travel budget for this personal trip than take a gift from someone who works in an industry he helps oversee.
Love the people arguing for lesser or cheaper ethics violations.
Lawmakers should pay for their own damn gym time and should not behave as if their job is one big perkola candy store.
Amy Alkon at June 16, 2011 3:02 PM
Of course, all this is chump change compared to what they spend to suck up to campaign supporters.
Dwatney at June 16, 2011 3:29 PM
Government is always a choice between the lesser of two evils. Government has a monopoly on the use of force, even the power of life and death over its own citizens. So, the choice is often not---but should be---about which option will least restrict the freedom or pick the pocket of the taxpayer. Often, though, the pocket has already been picked and it's just a choice between a boondogle and a money pit.
Tyler at June 16, 2011 3:45 PM
I'm completely with Patrick on this one. Many, many employers provide gyms for their employees. It's not just to provide a perk to their employees either. A healthier workforce means less sick days, higher morale, and reduced stress leading to better decision making.
This is the biggest non-scandal I've ever seen and I can't believe that anyone is surprised or upset about it. Next thing you know, they'll find out that there is a Congressional cafeteria that sells food at reasonable prices and the blueberry pie is pretty good. All these scandalous and unnecessary perks!
whistleDick at June 16, 2011 11:35 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/06/16/why_are_we_payi.html#comment-2276199">comment from whistleDickMany, many employers provide gyms for their employees
Many, many people are freelance and pay for everything themselves, including their healthcare.
Amy Alkon at June 16, 2011 11:52 PM
To all of those arguing that the taxpayer-funded gym isn't a big deal: please re-read the second paragraph of the Steyn quote above.
Yeah, in itself, it's not a huge deal. But it's part of a large pattern of spending public money with abandon, not to mention a culture of entitlement among the political class. And when the country's going bankrupt, unemployment is at 10%, and the rest of America has had to cut back on perks, maybe Congress should, too.
pbaseoul at June 16, 2011 11:55 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/06/16/why_are_we_payi.html#comment-2276207">comment from pbaseoulpbaseseoul is exactly right. Thanks.
Amy Alkon at June 16, 2011 11:57 PM
"Many, many people are freelance and pay for everything themselves, including their healthcare."
That's true. That's why I'm in favor of universal healthcare.
We all choose our own road and weigh our decisions on cost versus benefit. I chose a road of public service that your tax dollars pay for. Believe me, I strive everyday to be worth your money.
I also get a lot of perks to include gyms, cheaper groceries, cheap recreational rental stuff, access to a really nice woodworking shop for $2 an hour, travel, etc, etc, etc. These things are nice to have. That has a lot to do with why I stuck around for as long as I have. It makes me feel valued.
In the private sector, I could make a shit ton of money doing what I do and have turned down huge offers. My cash flow isn't much, but my lifestyle is pretty good and I feel good about the job I do and like waking up in the morning to go and do it. The tax payer is saving money this way.
This argument doesn't really apply so much to members of Congress, rather to federal employees in general. A gym is not frivolous. In fact, a few years ago, all Air Force gyms stopped providing a towel service to save money. No big deal and completely understandable. I can certainly bring my own towel. Still, I have to admit that it was kind of an, "Aw, what a drag."
whistleDick at June 17, 2011 2:58 AM
"Yeah, in itself, it's not a huge deal. But it's part of a large pattern of spending public money with abandon..."
pbaseoul is right. You are all very right to be looking for ways to save money. I think the thing that Patrick and I, as members of the military community, are busy rolling our eyes about is that there are so many more obvious places to save tons of tax dollars that this just seems silly.
Here is a quick list from the top of my head:
Plasma screens. Patrick knows what I'm talking about.
Tech refresh (read "replace with new") on all computers every two years, even for people who use their computers only to send emails and use web pages.
Airline tickets. Here's one for you. Recently, I took a trip home to visit my daughters. The privately purchased ticket cost $1000. That was a great deal by the way (Thanks Expedia.). I saved about $500. (Forgive the shout out, but Expedia really hooked me up.)
When the government flies me back to the States when my tour is complete, they'll happily pay around $2600-$3000 for the same cheek-to-jowel, coach-assed ticket. Why? Because they insist that the ticket be refundable. On the surface, it doesn't sound too bad because you would imagine that orders get changed a lot at the last minute and so on. But, Christ, even if as many as 40 or 50% of orders were changed at the last minute like that (not so at all, by the way), it would make better sense to just eat the cost of the cancelled tickets. That alone would probably save billions. (Just a knee-jerk guess. As a group, we travel a lot.)
Oh wait. I almost forgot. That $1000 ticket was round trip. The $2600 one will be one way.
I could go on and on, as could anyone who is accustomed to watching the government spending money.
Your hearts are in the right places, but there isn't anything wrong with a Congressional gym. In fact, that's probably a value added expenditure.
whistleDick at June 17, 2011 3:28 AM
Right. Because paying more for less is in everyone's best interests.
Look, whatever the government does costs twice as much as the public sector and come in at half the quality, if that.
We're looking to SHRINK the government, not grow it. If the government wasn't consuming 50 cents of every dollar I earn, I'd live a far better life.
brian at June 17, 2011 8:47 AM
@Tyler: "Government is always a choice between the lesser of two evils."
Accepting that means accepting that all the powerful need to do is raise the baseline of evil, and you would accept the newest atrocity as inevitable.
"I'm not comfortable with infant cannibalism, but it's not as bad as infant cannibalism on the church altar, so I guess we're stuck with it."
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at June 17, 2011 9:40 AM
"If the government wasn't consuming 50 cents of every dollar I earn, I'd live a far better life."
That's quite a tax bracket you've got there. How do you come to that figure?
whistleDick at June 17, 2011 11:52 AM
Well upwards of 30% on income and anywhere between 10%-20% of purchases depending on the item and zip code
lujlp at June 17, 2011 9:58 PM
Leave a comment