I've always thought that this was a little ridiculous:
Mr. Clarke is one of as many as a dozen freshman House members who plan to bunk in their offices when Congress is in session. Though no one has hard numbers, anecdotal evidence suggests that at least 40 to 50 House members, both new and old, will be sleeping at work.
For many of them, joining the unofficial Couch Caucus is a practical way to save money and a symbolic gesture that they are both fiscally conservative and serious about changing how business is done in Washington.
“It just seemed like sleeping in my office, just focusing totally on my work when I'm here, made the most sense,” said Joe Walsh, Republican of Illinois. “I don’t want to think about where I’m living, I don’t want to think about what I’m eating; I want to get in, do my work and then get home and talk to the people who sent me here.”
Refusing a good night's sleep and a decent diet doesn't actually say anything about your fiscal conservatism. Indeed, I'm not even sure that it communicates "seriousness." Who is more serious about legislating? The member who sacrifices his well-being for bragging rights, or the member who treats himself well with the aim of peak performance? I didn't vote for Robert Hurt -- the new GOP representative for Virginia's 5th District -- but I'd be annoyed if he chose to waste his time by pretending that Congress isn't a real job.
That said, I understand the symbolism of refusing decent accommodations; they are doing "the people's work," and the people -- supposedly -- wouldn't stand for representatives who spent a little money on themselves. It's somewhat laudable, but mostly silly.
On a related note, if members can't afford decent accommodation, then maybe we should pay them more, instead of making symbolic cuts to their salaries.
-- Jamelle Bouie
