Robert Pratt
The Texas Tribune had a story headlined “Arrington, a freshman in Congress, bucks trend by moving family to D.C.” in which Abby Livingston reported: “Arrington is an outlier in this life choice, both in the Texas delegation and in the rest of Congress. Most members opt for a different lifestyle, racing to Washington at the beginning of every week and returning home three days later.”
Fort Worth’s Mark Veasey said that while the camaraderie of members socializing to
gether in D.C. helps breakdown polarization, such “is not financially realistic to him or many other members. Veasey said that finding adequate housing for a family near the Capitol was cost prohibitive and he was unwilling to commute in from the Virginia or Maryland suburbs. Many members abide in apartments and in shared townhouses while in town, some with roommates.”
“”One bathroom, three men,” said U.S. Rep. Beto O’Rourke [of El Paso], describing his living situation in D.C. with two other House members. While he misses his wife and three kids, he said he prefers the current situation to moving them to Washington.”
Jodey Arrington
As a family decision, I’m ambivalent to the issue as far as Jodey Arrington goes but, not so on the financial side. Where did Arrington, a lifelong political and taxpayer payroll guy, get the funds to live well with family in D.C. when many members have to share housing with each other to be there?
Could it be that when you are of the Washington-insider crowd and a pre-pledged reliable vote for those power-insiders, people find a way to take care of you financially?
I’m just asking what most in-district media will not.
Mr. Pratt, I know that this would run contrary to your antagonistic predisposition towards Congressman Arrington, but did you ever stop to think that Congressman Arrington’s choice harkens back to the olden days of Washington, when Congressmen dedicated themselves to good governance rather than making speeches in town for a couple of days, then racing back home to gripe about how much they hated DC without ever accomplishing a thing?
Our government worked best when Congressmen dedicated themselves to representing their constituents in DC, and then, if they failed to represent them adequately, the voters found someone else who would.
Hmmm. You seem to have history a bit backwards. The Congress was a part-time institution in which members only traveled to DC for the brief, relative to today, session. You are espousing the progressivist theory of professional governance. No wonder you don’t get the point.
By the way, was it my “antagonism” that prompted the Texas Tribune story? I must be very powerful to insert such ideas in the minds of the Austin media.
And you didn’t address the primary question: Where’s he getting the money to do what others cannot?
If we want to make Congress a part-time institution akin to the Texas Legislature, I’d be open to supporting it. But that’s not what it is right now. Congressmen flying back and forth every week so they boast about refusing to live there (whilst getting nothing done while they are in town) is a colossal use of resources that’s not any more beneficial to good governance than the “professional governance” theory of which I’m no more a fan than you are.
Your antagonism = you weren’t a fan of Congressman Arrington during the election, so you’re not predisposed to give him a fair shake now that he is our representative.
I have no idea where he’s getting his money, but to suggest he is doing it while others “cannot” isn’t fair. Congressman Veasey never said he can’t, just that he doesn’t want to live in the VA/MD suburbs. I imagine there are plenty of reps and senators who can afford to live there but choose not to as a purely political decision.
He must have saved all that Texas Tech salary into a lock box.
I think we need to keep a close eye on what he is doing and hold his feet to the fire.
That is what I think I should do for all elected officials whether friends or not.