career politicans

[kwc57]

Political jobs should be based on merit like any other job. If you do a good job, you get to keep it. Imagine if you interviewed for a job and they told you they would train you, pay you and give you benefits, but at the end of 2 years, you're out of here. Honestly, how interested would you be in taking that job and doing well in it?

Politicians already face a tougher standard than you or I do with our jobs. Every X years, they have to run for office again and get reelected. Do you have to get rehired every x years?

Term limits is another bumper sticker "solution". The issue is, most people think their congress critter is doing just fine, it is the congress critters from the other 49 states that suck and need to be replaced.

Merit. We the people already have all the power we need. It is called a "vote". It is the ultimate power and term limit. Please use it wisely.

 

[MaggieMae]

how do we get rid of them? no more than two terms should be the limit for all offices. lets make it happen.

You act as if they're a bad thing.

There ARE some very bad ones, on both sides of the aisle. The frustration, however, is that as people complain about Congress (I think there's a new poll out today), when asked if they like their OWN, they inevitably will say yes.

 

[Emma]

Why shouldn't I be able to vote for whom I wish?

Good point.

must be so polies loose here

 

[MaggieMae]

I agree that if the wages were lower there would be fewer people wanting to work in Congress or elsewhere for life. The problem is that lowering the wages of congressmen makes them even more susceptible to bribes, etc., which is also bad.

Guys, people don't run for Congress for the money. Trust me. It doesn't pay well enough for that.

Hell, I think I could live off the perks alone.

 

[froggy]

why would you want them in there more than that

That isn't addressing my question. Why shouldn't I be able to vote for whom I wish?

you should but just like the prez spot two terms mabye they try to achieve something good for amer.

 

[MaggieMae]

In addition to lowering their pay, take the power back from them and put it back into the people's hands.

In other words no elected representatives at all? Sorry, but I would hate to be at the receiving end of radicals who decide to institute major changes that would affect every American just because they think they know it all and therefore are exempt from any process.

As for their salaries, this could be done. Whenever a bill comes before Congress to increase their wages and it is passed, the POTUS could always veto it. That way, Congress could have their wages level-funded for X-number of years. See how THEY like it.

 

[namvet]

how do we get rid of them?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQbr2Y4YUAc]YouTube - How To Vote[/ame]

step 7: bring ACORN rep along

 

[MaggieMae]

why would you want them in there more than that

That isn't addressing my question. Why shouldn't I be able to vote for whom I wish?

What are you talking about? You think you should be able to vote for a Congressman or Senator from some other state?

 

[Emma]

why would you want them in there more than that

That isn't addressing my question. Why shouldn't I be able to vote for whom I wish?

you should but just like the prez spot two terms mabye they try to achieve something good for amer.

If I should, then let's leave it that "term limits" are the ballot.

 

[trueblue]

Drop their wages to minimum full time wages, they aren't worth more than that anyway.

I agree that if the wages were lower there would be fewer people wanting to work in Congress or elsewhere for life. The problem is that lowering the wages of congressmen makes them even more susceptible to bribes, etc., which is also bad.

The easiest way to limit lifetime politicians is to vote for a term limit. This has to be done in congress itself (which won't happen) unless someone can get it on the ballot for the general election (which would be hard, but it's possible).

While we're at it, why not reduce the amount of time congress spends being congresspeople? They don't get much done anyway, and the stuff they do get done often looks like they've had way to much time on their hands. Why not restrict them to, say, four weeks a year-- two in February and two in August? They'd have to focus on the most important stuff and we wouldn't have to hear about congress all year...

You're joking, I hope. Ever watched the proceedings of the House and Senate on C-Span and C-Span2 respectively? They can't even get a fucking resolution designating a post office done in less than an hour.

If anything, House members need LONGER terms. They wind up working one of their elected years and campaigning for reelection the second year. The Senate terms are actually too long, at six years, which should be no more than four. By the time they reach their fifth year, a rookie Senator will have been totally corrupted by the elder systemic politicians.

Gotta love the CSPAN. Your point is exactly why I think there should be less time-- force them to speed things up, prioritize and find more efficient ways to designate post offices.

But I'm not talking about terms. I'm talking about actual working days in a year. Being a member of congress should be supplementary to a real career in the real world, not one's only aspiration. With fewer working days per year (and corresponding salary cuts), our congress people could spend more time being around those they represent and working in an industry effected by the policies they create. Naturally, they would be forced to miss a few rounds of golf paid for by lobbyists, but I suppose they could manage that.

 

[Emma]

why would you want them in there more than that

That isn't addressing my question. Why shouldn't I be able to vote for whom I wish?

What are you talking about? You think you should be able to vote for a Congressman or Senator from some other state?

??

No, I'm not talking about other states...

 

[froggy]

If I should, then let's leave it that "term limits" are the ballot.

you must be working for one them laid back polies

 

[Emma]

you must be working for one them laid back polies

Because I want the choice to vote for those I wish to represent me?

 

[Polk]

Political jobs should be based on merit like any other job. If you do a good job, you get to keep it. Imagine if you interviewed for a job and they told you they would train you, pay you and give you benefits, but at the end of 2 years, you're out of here. Honestly, how interested would you be in taking that job and doing well in it?

Politicians already face a tougher standard than you or I do with our jobs. Every X years, they have to run for office again and get reelected. Do you have to get rehired every x years?

Term limits is another bumper sticker "solution". The issue is, most people think their congress critter is doing just fine, it is the congress critters from the other 49 states that suck and need to be replaced.

Merit. We the people already have all the power we need. It is called a "vote". It is the ultimate power and term limit. Please use it wisely.

Great post.

 

[Polk]

I agree that if the wages were lower there would be fewer people wanting to work in Congress or elsewhere for life. The problem is that lowering the wages of congressmen makes them even more susceptible to bribes, etc., which is also bad.

Guys, people don't run for Congress for the money. Trust me. It doesn't pay well enough for that.

Hell, I think I could live off the perks alone.

Members of Congress get paid 174k a year. Sounds like a lot, until you consider the cost of almost weekly travel back to the home district and the cost of maintaining a place to live in DC.

 

[kwc57]

Political jobs should be based on merit like any other job. If you do a good job, you get to keep it. Imagine if you interviewed for a job and they told you they would train you, pay you and give you benefits, but at the end of 2 years, you're out of here. Honestly, how interested would you be in taking that job and doing well in it?

Politicians already face a tougher standard than you or I do with our jobs. Every X years, they have to run for office again and get reelected. Do you have to get rehired every x years?

Term limits is another bumper sticker "solution". The issue is, most people think their congress critter is doing just fine, it is the congress critters from the other 49 states that suck and need to be replaced.

Merit. We the people already have all the power we need. It is called a "vote". It is the ultimate power and term limit. Please use it wisely.

Great post.

Thanks Polk. It's just common sense.......which seems to be in short supply these days what with all the pitchfork and torch folks.

 

[froggy]

Guys, people don't run for Congress for the money. Trust me. It doesn't pay well enough for that.

Hell, I think I could live off the perks alone.

Members of Congress get paid 174k a year. Sounds like a lot, until you consider the cost of almost weekly travel back to the home district and the cost of maintaining a place to live in DC.

ha! ha! everybody knows housing is furnished as well as travel expense via predims and other hidden ways

 

[Polk]

Hell, I think I could live off the perks alone.

Members of Congress get paid 174k a year. Sounds like a lot, until you consider the cost of almost weekly travel back to the home district and the cost of maintaining a place to live in DC.

ha! ha! everybody knows housing is furnished as well as travel expense via predims and other hidden ways

Housing is furnished? Since when?

 

[froggy]

NEWS RELEASE



For Immediate Release: For More Information Contact:

Thursday, August 17, 1995 Gary Ruskin (202) 296-2787



Nader Report Shows Members of Congress Keep Lavish Pay and Perks

While Slashing Programs for Ordinary Americans



Members of Congress have voted for proposed cuts in a wide range of programs for ordinary Americans, but have declined to make commensurate cuts in Congressional perks, according to a new report by the Congressional Accountability Project called Taking Advantage of the Taxpayers: A Guide to Congressional Welfare.



For example, the Fiscal Year 1996 Concurrent Resolution on the Budget includes a proposed $270 billion cut in Medicare over seven years, but spares free outpatient care for members of Congress at Bethesda and Walter Reed hospitals, as well as generous taxpayer-subsidized health insurance plans for members of Congress and their staff. The rescissions bill cuts assisted housing programs by $5.13 billion in fiscal year 1995, but spares the special $3,000 housing allowance tax deduction for members of Congress.



"Before cutting Medicare, Speaker Gingrich and Majority Leader Dole should cut the lard out of Congress first -- that means cutting Congressional pay and perks," said Ralph Nader. "Members of Congress should generate some leadership by example. They should stop sponging off the taxpayers."



"Gingrich and Dole are behaving like the old party bosses in the Soviet Union who dined on delicacies while the Russian people stood in line for potatoes," said Gary Ruskin, director of the Congressional Accountability Project.



"Senator Phil Gramm talks about how welfare recipients should 'get out of the wagon and help the rest of us pull.'" Nader said. "We say to Senator Gramm and his overpaid Congressional colleagues that they should get out of the Congressional welfare wagon and help the rest of us taxpayers pull."



The report shows that members of Congress have voted themselves generous pay increases, while many Americans have suffered stagnant wages and incomes for more than a generation. For example, members of Congress have voted for themselves a $25,000 pay increase above inflation since 1989, meanwhile the U.S. median family income is smaller now than it was 1969, adjusted for inflation. And the U.S. median male income is smaller now than it was in 1963, adjusted for inflation.



Members of Congress receive a generous package of pay and perks, including:

Base salary of $133,600 per year.
Fantastic pensions. (ex-speaker Tom Foley (D-WA) will receive almost $124,000 per year plus COLA, for the rest of his years.)
Free outpatient medical care at Bethesda Naval Hospital and Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
A special $3,000 a year tax deduction enjoyed only by members of Congress.
House Members keep the frequent-flier miles that taxpayers paid for.
Free meals and vacations from lobbyists and business groups. (New Senate gift rules will go into effect Jan.1, 1996.)
Taxpayer-subsidized life and health insurance.
Speaker Gingrich gets a special $25,000 "expense account." He never has to disclose where he spends the money, and it is considered income for tax purposes.


To purchase a copy of Taking Advantage of the Taxpayers: A Guide to Congressional Welfare, send $10 to Congressional Accountability Project, P. O. Box 19446, Washington, DC 20036.



-30-

The Congressional Arrogance Chart

Issue What Congress is Cutting
From Us
What Members of Congress Did Not Cut From Themselves
Health Care 1. Medicare ($270 Billion) (CRB)
2. Medicaid ($181.6 Billion) (CRB)

3. Subsidies for prescription drugs for upper income veterans (drug copayments will be increased) (CRB)

4. Lead-based paint hazard reduction program cut $85.3 million (RB)
1. Free outpatient care at Bethesda and Walter Reed Hospitals
2. Office of the Attending Physician -- on site treatment in the Capitol complex at low cost ($275/year for House, $520/year for Senate)

3. Taxpayer-subsidized health insurance

Welfare Reform 1. Food Stamps (CRB) (Spending reduced as part of combining into block grant)
2. WIC cut by $20 million (RB)
1. House Members receive free meals and vacations from lobbyists and others (Senate passed gift reform resolution effective Jan. 1, 1996 that bans "charity" vacations but will still allow gifts of some meals under $50)
2. Use of Office Expense Account monies to purchase meals for members of Congress

3. Use of leadership expense allowances to purchase food and beverages for members of Congress

Housing Assisted housing programs cut $5.13 billion (RB) $3,000 annual housing allowance tax deduction only for members of Congress
Transportation Phase-out of Amtrak and mass transit operating subsidies ($3.8 Billion) (CRB) 1. House Members may use taxpayer-paid frequent flier miles for personal use
2. Free parking at National and Dulles airports, and at the Capitol

Water Quality and Safety Sewage and safe drinking water facilities cut $1.077 billion (RB) Use of Office Expense Account for purchase of bottled water or spring water for Congressional offices to avoid tap water
Energy Low Income Home Energy Assistance cut $319 million (RB) Free firewood for Senate offices






Notes:

CRB= Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 1996, RB= Rescissions Bill



Sources: Rescissions bill, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 1996; "Summary of Agreement on Major Provisions," Majority Staffs, House and Senate Budget Committees; "Budget Resolution Conference Agreement Impact on Discretionary Programs," House Budget Committee Democratic Caucus. All budget numbers from Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 1996 are proposed cumulative cuts for fiscal years 1996-2002. Size of proposed program cuts in budget resolution provided when available. Otherwise size of proposed program cuts are unspecified in FY '96 budget resolution.

 

[MaggieMae]

I agree that if the wages were lower there would be fewer people wanting to work in Congress or elsewhere for life. The problem is that lowering the wages of congressmen makes them even more susceptible to bribes, etc., which is also bad.

The easiest way to limit lifetime politicians is to vote for a term limit. This has to be done in congress itself (which won't happen) unless someone can get it on the ballot for the general election (which would be hard, but it's possible).

While we're at it, why not reduce the amount of time congress spends being congresspeople? They don't get much done anyway, and the stuff they do get done often looks like they've had way to much time on their hands. Why not restrict them to, say, four weeks a year-- two in February and two in August? They'd have to focus on the most important stuff and we wouldn't have to hear about congress all year...

You're joking, I hope. Ever watched the proceedings of the House and Senate on C-Span and C-Span2 respectively? They can't even get a fucking resolution designating a post office done in less than an hour.

If anything, House members need LONGER terms. They wind up working one of their elected years and campaigning for reelection the second year. The Senate terms are actually too long, at six years, which should be no more than four. By the time they reach their fifth year, a rookie Senator will have been totally corrupted by the elder systemic politicians.

Gotta love the CSPAN. Your point is exactly why I think there should be less time-- force them to speed things up, prioritize and find more efficient ways to designate post offices.

But I'm not talking about terms. I'm talking about actual working days in a year. Being a member of congress should be supplementary to a real career in the real world, not one's only aspiration. With fewer working days per year (and corresponding salary cuts), our congress people could spend more time being around those they represent and working in an industry effected by the policies they create. Naturally, they would be forced to miss a few rounds of golf paid for by lobbyists, but I suppose they could manage that.

Theoretically, the month-long vacations they take (I think 3 a year) are to touch base on home turf with their constituents. I'll bet none of them worked as hard in their entire careers as they did during their last "vacation"!