Mark Parent
Opinions Editor

I really don’t like Congress. Then again, how could anyone?

Given our enormous debt, out of control entitlements, feckless foreign policy and inability to tackle even the smallest problems, this anger is completely understandable.

But, I’m not really interested in tackling these particular problems today. Instead, I’d like to focus on an issue that hits a bit closer to home: congressional pay.

You see, members of Congress are paid $174,000 per year. That’s a pretty good chunk of change.

Now, I’m pretty sure that most Americans are aware of this sizeable sum — or wouldn’t be surprised by it. Yet, I’m almost positive that everyday Americans would be shocked by the amount of time these men and women actually spend working.

According to the Washington Post, a typical workday of a Member of Congress involves: four hours of call time, one to two hours of constituent services, two hours of committee and floor work, one hour of “outreach” and one hour of recharge time.

At first glance, this may not seem outrageous. However, one particular part of this schedule really gets on my nerves: call time.

Call time is, essentially, a Member of Congress begging — on the phone — for money from a donor. That means that on a typical workweek — it’s rarely five days, by the way — your Congressman spends roughly 24 to 30 hours per week fundraising. That’s crazy!

This sad reality, however, isn’t Congress’s most egregious act. Instead, that distinction belongs to the 2016 electoral calendar.

Last November, Politico reported that Congress will be in session for a total of one hundred and eleven days in 2016.  Not to mention the fact that Congress is out of session the entire months of August and October.

Of course, this calendar is just a reflection of the election year, but it is still frustrating to the average voter.

Now, it should be noted that a lot of representatives work very hard when they’re at home in their states and districts. After all, constituent services are a vital part of public service and remain tremendously important to many struggling Americans.

But, in all honesty, the many competent staff members employed by members can adequately handle constituent services.

On the other hand, it is the duty of Congress to reach consensus — or at least bipartisan agreement — on major issues plaguing the country. And by spending two-thirds of the year at home — or fundraising — the American people are sent a clear message: the country is not our top priority.

So, let me propose a solution: Members of Congress should be paid the median household national income.

Of course, I’m well aware that this proposal has zero chance of ever entering into legal force, but I’d like to bolster my own sense of morality and place a good idea in my readers’ minds.

But, honestly, it really does make a lot of sense. After all, serving in congress should be considered a public service; and, in the spirit of service, why not take a salary that is reflective of the status of your rightful employers?

If the economy does poorly and people are struggling, Congress should feel it, too. And if wages rise and the economy improves, then Members of Congress get a nice little bump in pay.

To put this in perspective, Gallup reports that median household income in the United States is $43,585 per year.

Can you imagine if the people representing this country actually had to live a lifestyle reflective of the average person? It would be great! It would actually be public service!

Unfortunately, this isn’t going to happen anytime soon. Mainly, this is a result of Congress having the constitutional obligation to set their pay. And I seriously doubt a group of people who spend twenty-four hours per week fundraising are going to sign up for a $130,000 pay cut.

But Donald Trump may become president, so crazier things can happen!