Politicians wrestle with work-life balance in the public eye

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Rustymommy Clovis, NM
    March 5, 2014 8:14 p.m.

    Since congressmen get paid so much for doing their job, why does the term public "servant" apply?

  • BU52 Provo, ut
    March 3, 2014 1:52 p.m.

    Waa Waa, nobodies holding a gun to their head, when I was teaching school, coaching, and working my tail off during the summers- I wasn't spending much time with my young family either, but that was due to necessity. I understand Congress works from Monday noon-Thursday noon. If they are spending their extended weekend campaigning for the next election that's their choice. Is this article just a lead in to Matheson's run for governor.

  • SLCounty4Life Midvale, UT
    March 3, 2014 11:14 a.m.

    JMH (Jim Matheson Here?): You're not entirely right when you say, "It is public service since the vast majority of members of Congress would make double what they earn in serving in Congress."

    That's true for many members of Congress, but certainly not all of them. Many (most?) were not earning 170k+ per year in the private sector before going to Congress. Orrin Hatch, for example, has become a very rich man while "serving" in Congress.

  • MonitorTheGovernment Midvale, UT
    March 3, 2014 11:12 a.m.

    Another glowing article about Jim Matheson from our local press. Why don't you guys put the microscope on Matheson like you do with Mike Lee?

  • JMH Provo, UT
    March 3, 2014 5:31 a.m.

    It is public service since the vast majority of members of Congress would make double what they earn in serving in Congress. They give up their time and sacrifice time with their family to do what they thing is right. Members on both sides of the aisle are doing why they believe to be correct. That is why we have a representative form of government that should be encouraging debate.

    The only people that think their salary is great are those that have never been in a top position to earn a good salary. Most members take major salary cuts when they come to Congress but they do so for their own reasons, most thinking they can make a change in the direction of the country and have a positive impact. You can agree or disagree with them but they are following their beliefs. If enough people disagree with them they won't be reelected. But make no mistake, they sacrifice both earning capability and family life.

  • #1 Champ Salt Lake City, UT
    March 2, 2014 5:43 p.m.

    This is an enlightening article. Thank you.

  • wYo8 Rock Springs, WY
    March 2, 2014 5:00 p.m.

    Amen to the above comment, Years ago it may have been public service. The day after you get elected and you start planning for your next election, or you put your self interests ahead of the country its no longer public service. Public service would mean you have the same social security and health coverage as the average citizen has. Someone with good intentions can go to Washington and either they get sucked into Power grab or they get ostracized.

  • benjoginko Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 2, 2014 8:34 a.m.

    Am I the only one who hates the term "Public Service" I have a hard time thinking any of these guys who are making over $130 K a year are serving me. Also based off what they have accomplished in the last 50 years I don't see a whole lot of service but a whole lot of power grab.