Absent minded

What to do about absentee congressmen?  I just heard a most logical proposal get shot down by candidate for Senate Edgardo 'Sonny' Angara, who has served out almost the entire three terms available to him in Congress, and I could not wrap my head around the alternative Angara offered.

See, we vote congressmen into office for a purpose: to make laws.  Not to act like ATM's and dispense cash to sundry constituents in need of dole outs.  Not to conduct spectacular bombastic investigations in televised “inquiries in aid of legislation”.  Not even to wear fabulous gowns and heirloom jewelry during State of the Nation addresses.  No, we want our congressmen to sit down and discuss boring affairs of state, in the hope that with their collective wisdom, they can pass the right measures to guide this ship we landed in when our mothers decided to give birth.

But what's been happening is that certain congressmen have been remarkably remiss in their duty to even show up for session.  Despite campaigning like hell and suffering death threats from their political rivals and surviving assassination attempts from ninjas and slogging through rains and mud to shake the hands of the dirtiest voter in town, just so they can get in Congress, they don't.  Go in, that is.

They draw the salary they've been entitled to, they enjoy the perks of a member of the House of Representatives, they siphon the pork barrel funds they then sprinkle liberally around their favorites, but they don't show their mugs that much - with records showing that some absenting themselves more than half the year.

What to do?  The solution proffered has been, like with most jobs (if not all of them), is that the congressmen should be subject to the rule of “no work, no pay”.  You don't show up, you don't get paid.  Simple, right?  After all, taxpayers are footing the bill for these parliamentarians to pass bills.  So why spend taxpayers money for them to monkey around?

Yet, Congressman Angara doesn't agree with this proposal.  While there have been objections raised against it, all of which I'd be happy to dissect, Angara proposes an alternative, a solution he termed “no work, no vote”.  Initially, I thought he meant the absent congressmen would lose their right to vote on issues like the new name for this street and that avenue.  And initially, I had thought it wasn't much of an alternative, since obviously, if they're absent from the voting, then they can't cast a vote.

But the actual proposal was something much more bizarre.  It turns out, Angara is peddling the idea that if your beloved congressman doesn't do his job, then in the next elections, the solution is simply, don't vote for him.  Cast your vote for someone else.  That's what “no work, no vote” meant.

Er, well, that's all well and good, but thinking as a taxpayer, what happens to the good money I just poured into his pockets?  Three years of salaries, benefits, staff wages, office expenses, travel emoluments, development funds, and what-not: he gets to keep all of them?  Is that tenable in the light of a legislator's raison d'etre?

Angara's solution, coming from one who aspires for a higher political position still related to legislation, is surprising because in the end, it's no solution.  It doesn't address the fact that the electorate has been shortchanged, and the voters hoodwinked.  It doesn't address the fact that the treasury has been "depleted". (I could think of more vicious adjectives).

And really, will that change the behavior of the absentees?  Force them to behave so they become better voices of the people?  Not at all. Attendance records don't percolate their way into the consciousness of voters.  Even if data gets trumpeted in the papers, the voters are quick to forget.  Or, it's easy to make them forget, with glitzy election campaigns and dazzling TV ads.  So the threat they're not going to get re-elected is no threat.  Reforming the behavior of erring congressmen would be highly unlikely.

“No work, no vote”?  No way.