(Dec. 16) -- When you're balancing dual careers and kids, it can be hard to find time for a mere date night, let alone spend any real time together. So my husband and I were thrilled when we got to sneak away for a week to Scotland this summer. We toured Edinburgh Castle, bought Scotch and ate at the nicest restaurants we could, given that the food is still British.
We had a fabulous time, so I have no doubt that Rep. John Tanner, D-Tenn., and 11 other Congress members (and many of their spouses) had a grand time, too, last month when they toured Edinburgh Castle, sampled the Scotch and booked $500-a-night suites.
Of course, our Scottish junkets had something else in common: I was paying for both of them.
At least that's the message I took away from a Dec. 16 Wall Street Journal story on a congressional delegation's trip to the recent NATO Parliamentary Assembly conference.
The dozen lawmakers attended the conference (which is not actually affiliated with NATO) at taxpayer expense to "learn firsthand the views and concerns that other countries have over the key security issues of the day," though apparently the security issues weren't "key" enough to bother staying for the whole event. As for bringing spouses? A spokesman for Rep. David Scott, D-Ga., told the Journal that such trips compensate for the long absences Congress members endure. "Having a spouse travel helps keep the family together."
I agree that traveling with a spouse is important, though my husband and I maximized our private time together by driving our own car. The congressional delegation hired professional drivers, which came out to $2,500 a day. They also got their own plane, while we had to fly coach, but I'm sure there was a good reason for that.
They did have some work to do, which is why they booked additional suites beyond the rooms they slept in for meetings. As I read the article, I thought that it must be nice to have the budget for that; when my husband and I both had to put out work fires during our Scottish trip, we were forced to make do with the same room that had our bed.
We also had to go buy our own Scotch, since it would have been a bit expensive to pay for our assistants to come along on the trip. After all, there had to be room in our budgets to pay the taxes that allowed the congressional delegation to bring along military liaisons who, according to the Journal, did the legwork of buying three bottles of 12-year-old Auchentoshan for $42 apiece.
At least the liaisons were reimbursed for the Scotch. It would be a bit politically tone deaf to expect taxpayers to pick up the tab for what are obviously boozy souvenirs.
But frankly, as Congress and the Obama administration rail against bankers getting bonuses after being bailed out by the taxpayers, it's more than a little ironic that Congress is expecting taxpayers to pick up the tab for its own luxuries. In the grand scheme of the national debt (highlighted on both Tanner's and Scott's Web sites), a $500-a-night suite isn't much.
When you want to point out the speck in someone else's eye, it helps to first remove the barrel of Scotch whisky from your own.
___________________
Laura Vanderkam is a New York-based writer and author of "Grindhopping" and the forthcoming "168 Hours."
We had a fabulous time, so I have no doubt that Rep. John Tanner, D-Tenn., and 11 other Congress members (and many of their spouses) had a grand time, too, last month when they toured Edinburgh Castle, sampled the Scotch and booked $500-a-night suites.
Of course, our Scottish junkets had something else in common: I was paying for both of them.
At least that's the message I took away from a Dec. 16 Wall Street Journal story on a congressional delegation's trip to the recent NATO Parliamentary Assembly conference.
The dozen lawmakers attended the conference (which is not actually affiliated with NATO) at taxpayer expense to "learn firsthand the views and concerns that other countries have over the key security issues of the day," though apparently the security issues weren't "key" enough to bother staying for the whole event. As for bringing spouses? A spokesman for Rep. David Scott, D-Ga., told the Journal that such trips compensate for the long absences Congress members endure. "Having a spouse travel helps keep the family together."
I agree that traveling with a spouse is important, though my husband and I maximized our private time together by driving our own car. The congressional delegation hired professional drivers, which came out to $2,500 a day. They also got their own plane, while we had to fly coach, but I'm sure there was a good reason for that.
They did have some work to do, which is why they booked additional suites beyond the rooms they slept in for meetings. As I read the article, I thought that it must be nice to have the budget for that; when my husband and I both had to put out work fires during our Scottish trip, we were forced to make do with the same room that had our bed.
We also had to go buy our own Scotch, since it would have been a bit expensive to pay for our assistants to come along on the trip. After all, there had to be room in our budgets to pay the taxes that allowed the congressional delegation to bring along military liaisons who, according to the Journal, did the legwork of buying three bottles of 12-year-old Auchentoshan for $42 apiece.
At least the liaisons were reimbursed for the Scotch. It would be a bit politically tone deaf to expect taxpayers to pick up the tab for what are obviously boozy souvenirs.
But frankly, as Congress and the Obama administration rail against bankers getting bonuses after being bailed out by the taxpayers, it's more than a little ironic that Congress is expecting taxpayers to pick up the tab for its own luxuries. In the grand scheme of the national debt (highlighted on both Tanner's and Scott's Web sites), a $500-a-night suite isn't much.
When you want to point out the speck in someone else's eye, it helps to first remove the barrel of Scotch whisky from your own.
___________________
Laura Vanderkam is a New York-based writer and author of "Grindhopping" and the forthcoming "168 Hours."
