Sheesh. Leave the guy alone. Disagree with his politics all you want, but let the man use his (physical vs. Constitutional) office as he pleases. If his staying there appears to be a big issue for his constituents, they are free to remove him.

This kind of "journalism" does nothing to help the public make informed decisions. And it makes it easier to discredit a profession that is critical to the well-being of society.

First of all, good for this congressman. I'd be more inclined to vote for him as well.

Second, notice how O'Donnell thinks the act of not spending money should be taxed as income. I live in an apartment that is 1/10th of our income. Financial types recommend you spend 1/4 of your income on housing. Should I be punished for being thrifty?

Third, I miss Cathy Seip. Thanks for the link.

It's an absurd argument.

I live in the city; do I need to declare the money I save by walking to work as income, because I don't have to spend money on gas? Or if I buy steak at the supermarket that's on sale of $2.00 less than usual, do I have to declare that $2.00 as income? And what value does the government place on rent? If this congressman finds an apartment for $1500/month, can the government tax $500/month as "income" because it has decreed that people "should" spend $2000/month on rent?

It's bad enough that the government taxes our income, now O'Donnell is claiming that the government can tax our frugality as well? It's stupid. And his treating stupidity as a 'fact' is even more stupid.

Who is this O'Donnell cat anyway? I didn't watch the video. I only read the transcript. But this guy has to be aware of how ridiculous he sounds, doesn't he? Doesn't he?

Most people don't understand how gawdawful the actual job of being a member of Congress is.

From Monday night until Friday morning they're expected to work almost around the clock. Yes, they really are in their offices until 2 am.

So if you were alone in DC (your family is back home in your district), would you shell out the bucks to rent an apartment - that you'll never really use - near Capitol Hill?

Would you try to find a less expensive place further out... and commute for 45 minutes? Would you leave the office at midnight only to have to be back in the office at 7:30 the next morning? Many members of Congress live like college students while in DC - sleeping in their offices or sharing crappy apartments with other members.

It actually gets worse. Because they're up for election every two years, there's a lot of pressure for them to be at political functions in their districts on the weekends, so Mondays and Fridays are travel days.

If you're from the West, that's a very long travel day (especially on Mondays, flying East).

The only other option is to pick up and move to DC. But you'd have to be in a very safe district (politically), and a move to DC is a pretty big hit to most family budgets.

So members of Congress - especially the younger ones with families and tighter budgets - live like vagabonds. And yes, many sleep in their offices.

Are they expected to get an apartment and he just hasn't? While I don't have a problem with him sleeping in his office persononally, how many people who genuinely struggle financially would love to sleep at their job? Does he work in DC year round or does he work at home part of the time? Mr. O'Donnell, while rude, was asking some valid questions. When it comes to the IRS, they would tax air. If a congressman is supposed to report something, he should. And if he doesn't know the answer, for the sake of his constituents, he should find out the answer. Maybe its just seeing all the corruption in our political offices, but I'm not as offended by the questioning as everyone else here seems to be. I live in NY where we watched as our Senate held the taxpayers hostage and our governor had to resign not because he hired hookers but because he did it in a way that constituted federal crimes, etc. It sort of makes a tax payer tired of the BS!

I actually think there is something a little weird with living in one's office...is he literally, truly, really, sleeping in his office a la George Costanza in The Nap episode every single night? Does he shower at the gym before work and order take-away every day?

Or does he just crash there once in a while when he knows he's going to have to work at 2 AM or something?

I think that if he is staying in the office every night and doesn't have to maintain a D.C residence that seems mighty WEIRD. Not criminal. Not tax-evasionish. Just weird.

Most people who have jobs that require them to travel and stay in places that aren't where their primary residence is have their additional housing/hotel costs paid for by the company. Just like you shouldn't be paying for your own plane ticket when traveling for work. So I guess if that benefit comes to him via sleeping in his office, he's actually SAVING tax payers money.

It's still flipping weird.

My understanding is that if you are 'on-call', which most Congressmen are 24/7 while in DC (and at home for that matter) that if you are sleeping in your office for the benefit of your employer (the taxpayers) then it is not a taxable benefit.

As for not maintaining a DC residence, I think it's refreshing. Too many Congresscritters maintain a DC residence which I think pulls them further from their home constituencies. They shouldn't think of DC as their home--where they are from is their home. If more of them remembered that and took similar steps, I don't think we'd be in such a mess.

I sleep in my office every night. I'm self-employed. Would O'Donnell have me claim the $2,000 a month I'm not paying in commercial-space rent for my office as income too?

Asshole. I never thought PMSNBC could do worse than Olberdouche. I was wrong.

No, Kristin, O'Donnell was not asking "valid questions." He was throwing an accusation out and hoping it would stick. It's his responsibility as a journalist to find out if the question he's asking has any merit whatsoever BEFORE he asks it. Otherwise he's just a political hack mouthpiece. (Which he is.)

And as for the Congressman, whether or not "he should report something": Look at the allegation and ask yourself it it makes any sense whatsoever. According to O'Donnell's line of interrogation, the money that these people do not spend on housing is income? Really?

So if they take a shower in the House gym, should they pro-rate the water bill and report the balance as income? How about sewer bills when they take a dump? Is the lodging at the White House considered "income" for the Obamas? Does this apply to all federal employees?

It's a farce, and O'Donnell willingly played along. Good for the Congressman for standing up to him and refusing to acknowledge the validity of the question.

Amy, I don't want to hijack this discussion, but the first paragraph you wrote about yourself describes me perfectly. However, it is a big reason why my ex-wife left me, and it seems to be a huge turn off to women I meet when I try to date. How do you handle this with Gregg?

Gretchen,

If you think sleeping in your office is weird then you shouldn't ever come to the Seattle area--know how Bill Gates grew Microsoft so quickly?

He created a corporate culture where sleeping in ones office was not only allowed, but encouraged, and put in a gym, showers, cafeteria, video games, etc. Sort of like a firehouse. Which sounds like it should be the model for Congress.

Amy, I don't want to hijack this discussion, but the first paragraph you wrote about yourself describes me perfectly. However, it is a big reason why my ex-wife left me, and it seems to be a huge turn off to women I meet when I try to date. How do you handle this with Gregg?

You have to find somebody who's okay with it. I think Gregg and I have a better relationship because we aren't together all the time, and we have a chance to miss each other. He also goes to Detroit every few weeks. I'm sad when he's gone, although we talk on the phone and Skype a lot. But, think of it this way: Eight years in, I really, really miss him a lot, and I'm always excited and happy when he comes to the door.

People often think they will change another person. I made it very clear to men I dated who I was: write all the time, don't want kids, don't believe in marriage, godless, etc. Of course, before the economy tanked (and especially for writers and newspaper writers) I used to take time out on weekends to do stuff during the day, but I really can't afford to do that anymore, and I do love writing and reading and thinking all the time, so work isn't work like it is for some.

My understanding is that if you are 'on-call', which most Congressmen are 24/7 while in DC (and at home for that matter) that if you are sleeping in your office for the benefit of your employer (the taxpayers) then it is not a taxable benefit.

Smart thinking, Midwest Chick.

Thanks Amy!

Will do. Obviously, it's a bit more complicated than what I wrote above...

No, Kristin, O'Donnell was not asking "valid questions." He was throwing an accusation out and hoping it would stick.

AB, I'm not saying the congressman is wrong. I'm questioning it because again, I live in a state where our Senate was able to hijack the Capitol and it cost the tax payers millions of dollars. They got into a power struggle, not a struggle over what was best for the tax payers and they all still collected their paychecks despite not working and locking each other out of chambers. I know of jobs created for friends and relatives as the parties change. So yes, I question whether or not congressmen are required to have an address while working in DC or if sleeping in offices are allowed. You can bet your ass that if the government could find a way to tax something they would so while I don't agree necessarily that saving on rent should be considered taxable income, I have no problem with a congressman being held accountable. Again, I wonder if this comes out of people being tired of the corruption that goes on in our political system. I'd rather question them and be wrong than not question and let corruption run rampant.

Kristin:

Five minutes of research by any reputable journalist would show that this line of questioning is a complete farce. Treating it as anything else is political hackery. This isn't a question of "corruption" or "favors" or anything. It's an ambush interrogation based on the assumption that something is illegal... when the law is extremely clear that this is quite legal. You're comparing apples to oranges.

The activist/journalist was not seeking information, he was just trying to harangue the guy, push a viewpoint, and, he hoped, get an emarassing overreaction from the politician on film. All interviewees can do in that instance is maintain their compsure, answer politely (once) and if the reporter keeps going on the harangue, politely say, "I gave you an answer on that topic. Do you have other questions on other topics?"

One thing people who don't typically get interviewed might not understand is that in the editing room, reporters and producers will--I am not exaggerating--sometimes take the answer to question B and splice it as the answer to question A. So the interview may go like this in reality:

Reporter: Do you support women's voting rights?

Politician: Of course, it is important that the government and our society endorse that sort of right under the law.

Reporter: Do you support Christians getting subsidies to fund their churches?

Politician: As a Christian and sworn public official, I find that policy problematic for a number of reasons.

The interview can later be cut to put the second answer after the first question. And reporters will, if called out, defend that action by saying, "Oh, the splicing is fair, because the questions are equivalent." When the interviewed party complains, they rarely get a response, let alone a correction.

Think about that next time you watch a 60 Minutes interview.

I stopped watching "interview" shows a long time ago, since they are nothing of the sort. You are better off reading a well-written, sourced book on a topic.

I have long maintained that unless an interview show will release the raw interview footage online, uncut and unedited, along with the produced one, I consider the show more fiction than fact.

It sometimes appears to me that the only qualification to be a journalist is to be a loud mouthed liberal that is unqualified to do anything else.

WSJ article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703559504575630661395762460.html

...is he literally, truly, really, sleeping in his office a la George Costanza in The Nap episode every single night? Does he shower at the gym before work and order take-away every day?

Yes. But they don't sleep under the desk with a secret compartment for their alarm clocks. They sleep on the floor or the sofa.

A Congressional representative is working in Washington, DC, but required by law to maintain a legal residence in his district. If his district is close enough for a daily commute, he can manage it. If it isn't, due to distance or travel obstacles...or both, he'll need a place to sleep in Washington.

And, unlike the old days when Congress met for a few weeks or months at a time, the job is nearly year-round these days.

So, his choices are to move his family to the DC area and maintain a small apartment in his district, maintain a small residence in the DC area, or sleep in his office. And he has to pay for the second residence out of his own pocket (they are allowed a $3,000 write off for living expenses when away from their districts or home states).

Maintaining a small apartment in the district means handing an opposing candidate a ready-made issue ("Why, he doesn't even live here!").

And Congressmen are "on call" at the Speaker's whim. If the Speaker says, "we won't go home 'til this is resolved," they can't call their union rep or the NLRB. They can leave, but that can carry career-ending repurcussions.

And 2:00 am roll calls or votes are not an uncommon ploy for a majority leader to try and sneak in a vote after most of the opposing party has gone home to sleep. So an apartment in the suburbs (where they're cheaper) makes little sense.

On the other hand, the pay is a bit higher than the average American's (they make more than 97% of the country does). Congressional representatives make about $174,000 per year. The Speaker gets about $224,000 and the majority and minority leaders get about $193,000.

Maintaining two residences and traveling back and forth - even on $174,000 - is a bit tricky if you're a representative from a district with high living costs (unless, like Nancy Pelosi, you married a rich spouse).

If they're going to be made to pay for the "privilege" of sleeping in their offices, then some rules on when votes can be called should be made. Or a dormitory for Congressmen needs to be established (yet another taxpayer expense).

It sometimes appears to me that the only qualification to be a journalist is to be a loud mouthed liberal that is unqualified to do anything else.

Have you ever watched Fox news?

AB, I think in general many reporters are rude in this day and age, not just O'Donnell. It has become the nature of the game. Again, I'm not saying the congressman is wrong, but there is a general frustration with politicians today. I didn't have a problem with the questions.

Who cares where he sleeps, who cares how much time he spends in his office. It's not like his sleeping there costs the taxpayers more. Good lord. So he's cheap. Whatever.

Yes, lets worry about sleeping arrangements...

and some politicians can just take off because they don't want to vote.

Wisconsin Senators take a bus trip to avoid work, play hooky?

http://www.wkow.com/Global/story.asp?S=14050028

I tried to share this on Facebook but got "Eek! Naked People" instead.

That's odd, Carol. Happened before? I can't reproduce what happened without reposting it to FB -- I already put up the link there to bring people here.

Sorry, Carol...don't know what's going on. My tweet links all seem to be working:

http://twitter.com/amyalkon

Last year Chaffetz returned $300,000 of the $1.5 million allowance he gets for his office.

(For curious trivia, Chaffetz'z father was Kitty [Dickson] Dukakis' first husband and Jason worked on the 1988 Michael Dukakis presidential campaign before becoming a Republican in 1990.)

"It sometimes appears to me that the only qualification to be a journalist is to be a loud mouthed liberal that is unqualified to do anything else."

At this point it will be useful to realize that yes, most journalists are not qualified to do anything, and just one reporter usually picks up a story - which is then repeated by talking heads all over the planet, who are paid to cause alarm. It is this alarm, and the nature of the people who find themselves "victims", that creates the "liberal" news slant.

Congressmen taking up residence in their offices is not new. I can recall similar stories from as far back as the 1970s. Washington is expensive. I personally appreciate a Congressman who views the job as being a TDY assignment rather than a ticket to the world's largest cocktail party.

As for O'Donnell, this is the second time this week that he's showed his ass in public. Here's the first.

"I didn't have a problem with the questions."

You think asking someone if they have reported income they already paid income tax on, to the IRS for a second go simply because they chose not to spend it, is fine?

Did you spend every penny you made this year? No? Are you planning on reporting that money to the IRS?

And what kind of dumbass suggests asking the IRS for advice? Their standing policy is even if you follow their advice your still lible if their information was wrong

Both O'Donnel and CREW are completely wrong on this tax issue. They are confusing the fringe benefit rules with an argument for taxing imputed income. For the record, if US taxpayers were providing lodging (i.e. actual subsidized housing) that are not: 1. on the business premises, 2. for the employer's convenience; and 3.a condition of employment, then the value of that lodging would be taxable to the employee.

Here, no such extra lodging expense is being incurred by Congress. Its just a guy who sleeps in his office.

What they are really arguing for is a taxation on imputed income, which would represent a fundamental shift in our country's tax philosophy. If you are handy around the house, imagine being taxed on the money you presumably saved by not having to hire a handyman to repair some drywall. Or, if you live in your RV, imagine being taxed on the "value" of rent saved. Basically, this would be a tax on a non-transaction.

Aside: I have it on good authority that when my old Tax Law professor was interviewed by my even older Con Law professor, the exchange went like this:

Con Law Prof: "What do you think about taxing imputed income?"

Tax Law Prof: (Presumably nervous about trying to get the job) "Well, in some situations it may be appropriate."

Con Law Prof: "Ass-holes like you make me sick to my stomach."