Pay Cut For Congress: Yea Or Nay?

[Quantum Windbag]

That is not excessive pay for an executive position

They do not have executive positions They work for the poor people who have to take undignified jobs to support themselves, they do not run a goddam thing.

I'm afraid they do

Being a congressman or Senator, as much as we despise them, is a difficult position with a large executive and political skill set

Your fear is a choice, the reality is that Congresscritters are not executives. They are not there to run anything, they are there to keep the government from getting to big. They have failed miserably, and should not be getting paid at all.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Yanno...............I don't really think that the problem is how much they are paid, but rather how long they are allowed to stay in Congress.

If we are to have a truly representative government, everyone should be allowed to serve, and you should only be allowed to serve no more than 12 years, that way, in addition to giving another person from that district or State a chance to serve, it would also cut down on the lobbyists having influence, because they'd have to buy a new congress critter every 12 years or so.

Shoot................there may actually be people who get elected who aren't interested in getting big bucks from corporations, but rather are actually interested in doing something good for their district, State and country.

We have term limits for Presidents, so why not have term limits for Congress and the Senate?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Really? I'm the only one as of now that says nay? The ONLY one?

My gripe is that we want our lawmakers to be the best and brightest... Most of the people in such positions are talented lawyers and communicators who could make a lot more in private practice as it is. Cutting their pay would be an insult ($174k for Senators, hardly Rockafeller money); and while most of them are already wealthy before they assume office, it's hardly due to the salary they make therein...

My take anyway. :shrug:

That $174K we pay our Congressmen also sets the limit on what we pay ambassadors, cabinet level officers, secretarys of defense and state and all key advisors

You ultimately get what you pay for

Most Ambassadors get their job after they pay millions of dollars to the guy who is running for president. If they can afford to spend millions to get the job,m they don't need to get paid at all.

You should read how Truman was able to attract the business leaders of his day by offering them the exorbitant salary of $1 a year. If he was able to get such high quality help, and pay so little, maybe we should do the same thing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The issue has nothing to do with congressional pay, but the failure of voters to hold elected representatives accountable.

Whatever the perceived failures of Congress, the blame lies with the voters.

But, of course, the right won't get it because they've fallen into the victim mentality they so often rail against when it comes to the poor. They're victims of Obama, of the liberal MSM, of progressive ideas, of Democrats, of whatever...on and on and on, ad nauseum.

I guess that proves I am not the right, does that make me the wrong?

 

[SteadyMercury]

On Thursday, Mega-Millionaire House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said she was against cutting Congressional pay because it would undermine the dignity of her job. But what do you all think?

I'd be curious what multi-millionaire Ron Paul thinks of it!

 

[Unkotare]

If we are to have a truly representative government, everyone should be allowed to serve,

No they shouldn't. What a terrible idea. Everyone who meets the age and residency requirements is eligible to serve, but not everyone (not most people, in fact) should be "allowed" to serve as if we are just taking turns at random.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, I said nay too.

Why? Because that's really not a lot of money for what they do. Most people have no idea what being a member of Congress entails or how expensive it really is.

Maybe they should pay attention before they take a job. If they can't do basic math and figure out if they can afford to do the job they shouldn't take it in the first place.

For instance...did you know that members of Congress are required BY THE CONSTITUTION to maintain an actual residence in their state or district? AND, they must have a place to live in Washington, DC, which is among the highest cost of living cities in America. The average rent is $1900 per month. Some of them bunk down in cooperative housing like the House on C Street, or share apartments because of the expense. Having two residences is not cheap.

Let me get this straight, you object to the requirement that they actually live in the District they claim to represent? How is that an added expense to being a congresscritter, didn't they have a residence before they applied for the job? Were they living on the street?

By the way, some of them have houses all over the place. For instance, Feinstein has a house in her district, and another where she actually lives when she spends time with her family.

Can't seem to muster any sympathy for that not being affordable on a congresscritter salary.

Their work day isn't confined to the few hours the two Houses are session. Not by a long shot. They typically work 12-16 hour days, meeting with constituents (anybody who can pass through a metal detector can walk right into their office), attending briefings and committee meetings, doing research or meeting with staff members, crafting legislation, going to the ends of the earth to "see for themselves" and spending time raising funds for the next election or visiting with the folks back home. It's a grueling, tiring, exhausting schedule which most who think they are overpaid could not survive.

OMG, they have to actually work.

By the way, the fact that they spend time campaigning to get reelected is actually an argument for a pay cut, not for giving them a raise.

Alternatively, we could go back to a citizens congress, one where the critters were expected to maintain a real job and support themselves even though they asked to represent us. That might result in them meddling in a lot fewer things they shouldn't, and would enable Obama to make actual recess appointments, not pretend ones.

Moreover, they have the exact same benefit package as any other federal employee and must allocate money out of their salary for healthcare and retirement benefits, in addition to the same payroll taxes the rest of us have to deal with. That cuts down on their take home pay the same as it does for you, but their expenses most likely exceed yours.

All federal employees get a travel allowance for flying back and forth to their districts, have an allowance for a car, get an allocation for an office and staff, and can get a retirement package after being fired from their jobs? Do you seriously expect me to believe that?

Why do you think so many members of Congress are millionaires? It's because average Joe's, like us, can't afford to be a member.

Most of them are millionaires because they have an incredible run of luck on business deals after they get elected.

Instead of a pay cut, I think they need a very substantial raise, enough so that normal folks can afford to run and still feed their families.

Yep, raising the pay will encourage the honest people to sign up, and discourage the crooks.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

The ideal congress would have few to no lawyers in it. Lawyers are as a group technocrats looking for an edge. There are thousands of book-sized laws plumbers might write in a page and produce more satisfactory law.

Raise your hand if you know there is no requirement Supreme Court justices be lawyers? How cool would it be to have nine honest people on the court instead of nine partisan technocrats? Be clear that law was not always WRITTEN by lawyers or argued by them either. Until the 1960s significant numbers of lawyers did not even attend law school.

Congress and the courts have been degraded by lawyers is the bottom line.

And pay for most of the top echelon of government workers is too high. Government used to be self cleansing, now we have lifers more interested in what they want than what taxpayers want. Thank Ronald Reagan for that; he signed the government pay parity bills without realizing pensions would skyrocket. The man signed more blank checks for more money than any other confidence man in history.

 

[ABikerSailor]

If we are to have a truly representative government, everyone should be allowed to serve,

No they shouldn't. What a terrible idea. Everyone who meets the age and residency requirements is eligible to serve, but not everyone (not most people, in fact) should be "allowed" to serve as if we are just taking turns at random.

Way to cherry pick what I'd said. I stated everyone should be allowed to serve, which I believe they should.

You obviously thought that meant appointing them by lottery. Nope, sorry, they still have to get elected by the popular vote.

 

[Pogo]

Really? I'm the only one as of now that says nay? The ONLY one?

My gripe is that we want our lawmakers to be the best and brightest... Most of the people in such positions are talented lawyers and communicators who could make a lot more in private practice as it is. Cutting their pay would be an insult ($174k for Senators, hardly Rockafeller money); and while most of them are already wealthy before they assume office, it's hardly due to the salary they make therein...

My take anyway. :shrug:

We? Is there a mouse in your pocket? Can you point anywhere I ever said our lawmakers should be the best and the brightest? Why would I want Bill Gates working in Congress when he is clearly much better suited to developing computer software?

Bad analogy. Bill Gates "writes computer software" in the same way that Jimmy Page "writes songs".

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think their pay should be cut in half and all perks eliminated. Also every bill they pass into law should apply to them just as it does for everybody else.

I agree except for the cut in pay. The Washington area is very expensive to live in.

Of course, their pay is the least of their concerns. Getting re-elected a few times so that they can later use the revolving door into a lucrative lobbying gig is their real goal.

Remove lobbying by former members of Congress or their family members would be the most effective.

Gee, I wonder why Washington is so expensive. I also wonder how all those people who aren't making hundreds of thousands of dollars manage to live in the area if it is so expensive. Could it be because all the congresscriitters really like paying for extra protection to keep the poor people who actually work in DC away from there house?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The best way to get rich is to serve in Congress. They don't need any more of our money.

Don't you ever wonder how a guy who only makes 170K a year can retire a multi millionaire after a few years serving in Congress?

Yep, and they get a full pension even if they only serve 2 years. How many people would turn down that deal?

snopes.com: Congressional Pensions

In order to refute the claim that they get a pension after only two years you post something that debunks a claim that they don't have to pay into Social Security, and admits that they get a pension after only two years.

Interesting.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The lefties want CEO's salaries cut because they don't like the way they are running their companies.
Well we want the same.Cut politicians salaries.At least until this administration can get the economy
going in the right direction...( Good luck with that.)

I'm willing to pay CEOs what Congressmen make

Will that help?

Buy the company and then you can pay the CEO whatever you want. Since I run Congress, I want them to get a pay cut.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Really? I'm the only one as of now that says nay? The ONLY one?

My gripe is that we want our lawmakers to be the best and brightest... Most of the people in such positions are talented lawyers and communicators who could make a lot more in private practice as it is. Cutting their pay would be an insult ($174k for Senators, hardly Rockafeller money); and while most of them are already wealthy before they assume office, it's hardly due to the salary they make therein...

My take anyway. :shrug:

I don't necessarily want the best and brightest, not at all. I want them to be the most representativist, i.e. the most reflective of my wishes. That's what they're (supposed to be) there for. That doesn't take talent; it just takes integrity.

It's estimated that 37% of Congresscritters are lawyers. Lawyers make up 0.36% of the population. That means attorneys are overrepresented in Congress by a factor of a hundred. At least.

There are way too many damn lawyers in Congress. I understand the advantage of having one there; I don't understand the advantage of having a hundred times the population. That ain't representation.

Since the job of a congressman is to make laws, I think I would prefer lawyers did it rather than plumbers.

What on Earth gave you the idea that the job of Congress is to make laws?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If we are to have a truly representative government, everyone should be allowed to serve,

No they shouldn't. What a terrible idea. Everyone who meets the age and residency requirements is eligible to serve, but not everyone (not most people, in fact) should be "allowed" to serve as if we are just taking turns at random.

Way to cherry pick what I'd said. I stated everyone should be allowed to serve, which I believe they should.

You obviously thought that meant appointing them by lottery. Nope, sorry, they still have to get elected by the popular vote.

As far as I know, everyone is allowed to serve. They have an ex con running for congress in Illinois right now.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Really? I'm the only one as of now that says nay? The ONLY one?

My gripe is that we want our lawmakers to be the best and brightest... Most of the people in such positions are talented lawyers and communicators who could make a lot more in private practice as it is. Cutting their pay would be an insult ($174k for Senators, hardly Rockafeller money); and while most of them are already wealthy before they assume office, it's hardly due to the salary they make therein...

My take anyway. :shrug:

We? Is there a mouse in your pocket? Can you point anywhere I ever said our lawmakers should be the best and the brightest? Why would I want Bill Gates working in Congress when he is clearly much better suited to developing computer software?

Bad analogy. Bill Gates "writes computer software" in the same way that Jimmy Page "writes songs".

True, but I still prefer him doing what he does to being in Congress, he does a lot more for the economy than any of those critters.

 

[freedombecki]

On Thursday, Mega-Millionaire House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said she was against cutting Congressional pay because it would undermine the dignity of her job. But what do you all think?

I think we should draw a huge "X" on the Mainland map between the northeasternmost edge of Maine to the San Diego southernmost beach And the northwesternmost tip of the Olympic peninsula of Washington to the southeasternmost tip of Florida. Where the "X" meets, all land for 25 miles radius from the point should be purchased at a premium and Washington, D.C. moved there to be the center of the nation and capitol, and leave the DC area as a national heritage museum center, if anyone dares to go there with the criminal element as it is.

I think from the new Capitol, also named "Washington Center," we should draw up new terms of contract to Senators and Representatives to serve for free. That would keep out those hoping to gain everything from their service to country to include all the amenities, of which there would be few in the middle of the USA. Then, knowing how the rest of the country lives, let them draw from their own experience the sacrifice that public service is, and that if they cannot act in an honorable manner, they are out on their ears.

I'm sick of fighting, spin rooms, lies manufactured for election time, and congresscritters lining up armored vehicles at the US Treasury to take home goodies to their states. I'm sick of unsportsmanlike conduct and congressmen and women acting like court jesters instead of the dignified people they should be.

And somebody, please spank Nancy Pelosi. If she wants dignity to be a part of the Congressional carryings-on, she should NEVER have told congressmen and congresswomen not to read the health bill, just pass so then they could know what was in it later.

That is the least dignified thing I've ever seen a woman congresswoman say or do. She will have dirt under her talons for the remainder of her animalistic life for the hatred and angst she has elicited by her planned avarice against the American taxpayer and withholding the informationn from the American people that she was foisting upon them the highest tax in the history of the United States Congress.

Snake snot has more dignity than Airforce jet heister Nancy Pelosi who demands personal safety for herself while she spends this nation into a disasterous oblivion that will result in international bitterness when America fails on account of her dishonesty.

/rant

 

[Unkotare]

You didn't leave a choice to vote "Aye". I really wanted Aye.

Congress shouldn't be a career goal. They should view the job the same as military service, for the same reason. They should be sequestered in dorms and not paid a salary at all. Free meals, and automatic restraining orders on all lobbyists. Let 'em take the role of serving their constituents. Only those who are truly dedicated to that service would run again.

You are consistently stupid.

 

[Pogo]

On Thursday, Mega-Millionaire House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said she was against cutting Congressional pay because it would undermine the dignity of her job. But what do you all think?

I think we should draw a huge "X" on the Mainland map between the northeasternmost edge of Maine to the San Diego southernmost beach And the northwesternmost tip of the Olympic peninsula of Washington to the southeasternmost tip of Florida. Where the "X" meets, all land for 25 miles radius from the point should be purchased at a premium and Washington, D.C. moved there to be the center of the nation and capitol, and leave the DC area as a national heritage museum center, if anyone dares to go there with the criminal element as it is.

I think from the new Capitol, also named "Washington Center," we should draw up new terms of contract to Senators and Representatives to serve for free. That would keep out those hoping to gain everything from their service to country to include all the amenities, of which there would be few in the middle of the USA. Then, knowing how the rest of the country lives, let them draw from their own experience the sacrifice that public service is, and that if they cannot act in an honorable manner, they are out on their ears.

I'm sick of fighting, spin rooms, lies manufactured for election time, and congresscritters lining up armored vehicles at the US Treasury to take home goodies to their states. I'm sick of unsportsmanlike conduct and congressmen and women acting like court jesters instead of the dignified people they should be.

A fine rant it was. Much like my idea of jamming them all into dorm rooms with free food and no salary, although I hadn't figured on moving them to Brasília. GMTA, Becki.

Meanwhile I see our illustrious OP host has tried to slither in undetected to amend his OP from "Billionaire" to "Millionaire". What happened, Paulie? Did Nancy lose billions in the stock market? Or is this a clever demonstration of how Congress works when no one's looking? Your impression of Phil Gramm? Nice.

 

[Politico]

Two term limits. No pay.