Jump to content

Senate Haircuts Have Cost Tax Payers $5.1 million since '97


Dean Cain

Recommended Posts

So somewhere north of 26,000 haircuts for the fellas and gals comes out to just south of $200 per snip session for the elected Senators alone. Of course, there are other factors to consider, and simply multiplying by this much and dividing by that much is always dangerous, so suffice to say close the Senate Barber Shop and let the Senators get their trims when they're back in their districts. Who knows, they might actually learn something sitting in a real barbershop? Plus it would be exciting for constituents to see a Senator actually pay for a service received!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, the Senate barber shop is a "pay as you go" establishment (i.e. the Senators DON'T get free haircuts, they have to pay for it - $23 for a men's cut), and it's open to the public (so the customer base is MUCH larger than just the Senate). And they can't make money. The $5.1M cost is the cost of bailing out a shop that can't make a profit because it has to pay hair stylists according to government schedule (including benefits).

 

It's not Congress that's fleecing taxpayers in this case - it's the bureaucratic idiocy of a federal government that by law runs a friggin' hair salon with four employees on the same labor and wage principles that it runs NIH or HUD. Which don't even work particularly well for NIH or HUD.

 

 

 

And this is why ANYONE who references "Infowars" is a de facto idiot. It took me about five minutes to find out how completely wrong that original story was.

Edited by DC Tom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, the Senate barber shop is a "pay as you go" establishment (i.e. the Senators DON'T get free haircuts, they have to pay for it - $23 for a men's cut), and it's open to the public (so the customer base is MUCH larger than just the Senate). And they can't make money. The $5.1M cost is the cost of bailing out a shop that can't make a profit because it has to pay hair stylists according to government schedule (including benefits).

 

It's not Congress that's fleecing taxpayers in this case - it's the bureaucratic idiocy of a federal government that by law runs a friggin' hair salon with four employees on the same labor and wage principles that it runs NIH or HUD. Which don't even work particularly well for NIH or HUD.

 

 

 

And this is why ANYONE who references "Infowars" is a de facto idiot. It took me about five minutes to find out how completely wrong that original story was.

 

Again do you support the government propping up this failing enterprise? I bet you do as anyone from DC is living large on the government dole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see people literally, making fun of such an expenditure, as a drop in the bucket sort of thing, or even a government subsidy...

 

But I think it obvious, we've all heard it before... drops, eventually fill the bucket and it overflows. Leaving one drop, ends up giving an excuse to leave other drops and soon, we're all drowning... In Debt.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again do you support the government propping up this failing enterprise? I bet you do as anyone from DC is living large on the government dole.

 

"Again" do I support it? What "again?" You never asked, and I never implied I did. All I did was correct your original bull **** source with real information.

 

And if you can't figure out what I actually think about it from the tone of my original post (I'll give you a great big hint: "bureaucratic idiocy of a federal government..."), you really need to get your head out of your ass a little more often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

"Again" do I support it? What "again?" You never asked, and I never implied I did. All I did was correct your original bull **** source with real information.

 

And if you can't figure out what I actually think about it from the tone of my original post (I'll give you a great big hint: "bureaucratic idiocy of a federal government..."), you really need to get your head out of your ass a little more often.

 

Thanks for setting me straight ole wise one from DC. Stay outta dem brothels now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Thanks for setting me straight ole wise one from DC. Stay outta dem brothels now.

 

I'm not one to defend DCTom. He's very capable of doing that on his own, but what puzzles me is what was your previous screen name? My guess is that you are coming back here under a different screen name after having your ass handed to you. Either that or you just have a number of aliases. Why are you guys feeling that we are out to get you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This person claims to be posting for a conservative "think tank." Were they joking? If not, why would she/he have changed names. They definitely lean towards the right.

 

Honestly, are there posters here that are doing this? I always suspected it...

 

 

 

I'm not one to defend DCTom. He's very capable of doing that on his own, but what puzzles me is what was your previous screen name? My guess is that you are coming back here under a different screen name after having your ass handed to you. Either that or you just have a number of aliases. Why are you guys feeling that we are out to get you?

Edited by ExiledInIllinois
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I work for a conservative think tank. I believe I am well within my American rights to the 1st Amendment. In Canada you can only dream of such liberty.

 

You are within your right but, what about this site?

 

I would think this would be against the ToS? Under "crusading." Or under a loose interpretation of "spam." Any clarification on this would be much obliged.

Edited by ExiledInIllinois
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...