How much should congresscritters be paid? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : How much should congresscritters be paid?


Skyhook
04-17-2012, 08:07
Ever wonder about that? We all know congresscritters (PC expression) seem to be immune to the effects of their own legislative blunders, but how about the remuneration- what would be reasonable?

Check this example, for instance: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/dnc-chief-called-release-tax-returns_637084.html

Now, why should Debbie be making so much more than the folks in her district? Being on the team forever bleating about 'fairness' is it 'fair' for her salary to be roughly triple that of her constituents?

DC, the land of bonuses and boners.:upeyes:

Guss
04-17-2012, 12:44
It's very expensive to live in D.C.

Nemesis.
04-17-2012, 12:52
Tough question. Many Congressmen are actually quite accomplished in the real world, having given up high paying jobs to go into politics.

Others went into politics because they're too stupid to work in the real world. Maxine Waters and Hank Johnson come to mind.

How to resolve the disparity in IQs?

smokeross
04-17-2012, 14:03
They should be paying us since they make millions off insider trading, back room deals, graft, and corruption.

Skyhook
04-17-2012, 14:08
They should be paying us since they make millions off insider trading, back room deals, graft, and corruption.

:cheers:


THIS.

coastal4974
04-17-2012, 14:14
They should get compensation equal to an Army Private.

The Maggy
04-17-2012, 14:29
How much should they be paid? Not enough.

czsmithGT
04-17-2012, 14:36
It's very expensive to live in D.C.

Pay them minimum wage and make dorms with cafeterias available if they can't afford other housing. Significantly reduce the time they are in session. Cut their staff budgets by 60%. Limit them to two terms.

aircarver
04-17-2012, 16:30
What they're worth .... :whistling:

.

coastal4974
04-17-2012, 17:03
Pay them minimum wage and make dorms with cafeterias available if they can't afford other housing. Significantly reduce the time they are in session. Cut their staff budgets by 60%. Limit them to two terms.


+1 but if we did that we wouldn't have to limit terms :supergrin:

coastal4974
04-17-2012, 17:04
What they're worth .... :whistling:

.


They should get paid twice what they're worth.




2x0= :supergrin:

smokin762
04-17-2012, 17:21
I don’t think they should be paid at all and I think there should be term limits.

However, if they need to be compensated for their time, then they should not be paid a dime more than what the average taxpayer earns and they should only receive the same benefits as the average taxpayer.

Kingarthurhk
04-17-2012, 17:33
Pay them minimum wage and make dorms with cafeterias available if they can't afford other housing. Significantly reduce the time they are in session. Cut their staff budgets by 60%. Limit them to two terms.

My favorite suggestion so far. Many state legislatures have elected officials who aren't paid at all. They have to have a real life outside of the legislative function. I would at least keep them somewhat grounded in reality.

Bruce H
04-17-2012, 18:56
Nothing until the national debt is eliminated. Then a very small amount. If they can't do quite well financially while being politicians they are too dumb to be running the country.

steveksux
04-17-2012, 20:10
Didn't you mean to say fined?

Otherwise not sure that the question makes any sense as asked... :whistling:

Randy

juggy4711
04-17-2012, 22:39
Didn't you mean to say fined?

Otherwise not sure that the question makes any sense as asked... :whistling:

Randy

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

janice6
04-17-2012, 22:51
My quandry is:
1. Pay them so little that they will have to keep a real job. and can't make a career out of politics.

2. Pay them enough that they cannot be bribed. Now we all know this is not possible so, #1.

G29Reload
04-17-2012, 22:58
It's very expensive to live in D.C.

Yes, and its said that a good portion of the high salary is to defray that. I say, ID that portion, and cut it off. Instead:

Take reasonable amount of money, and build a permanent dorm.

Two to a room.

Group kitchen.

Bunks.

Remove the argument about how much it costs to live there by providing a clean, simple, comfortable and functional residence, efficiently run. They can even put solar panels on the roof.

It can be set back farther from the Capitol, and shuttle busses can be run when its in session.

You don't have to live there, if you happen to be wealthy, you can skip out and pay out of your own pocket to live as you like.

But once you're in, you live in the dorm, you no longer have an argument about how you need more because DC is expensive, the item is hereby taken off the table.

So, you only need money to live at your district's cost of living and your salary is adjusted accordingly.

You can even have free refills of coffee in the kitchen. Toast and eggs for breakfast, grab a burger for lunch and your dinner limit is 15 bucks.

Not so glamourous, is it? Well, you wanted to be a congressman. Maybe now you'll be here cause you really want to make a difference, and not just suck up.

certifiedfunds
04-17-2012, 23:05
I don't much care about Congressional pay. $174,000? Big whoop. It pales to the amount of money they will make by leveraging their power and connections gained in office.

That's what I care about.

Take a Newt Gingrich, for instance. Newt was a modest middle class history professor before getting into government. Now, he feeds off of big government and lo and behold, Newt's rich!

Congressional pay is a distraction to keep you from focusing on why they really want to go to DC. Lobbying gigs, BOD appointments, consulting contracts, books bought by the case.......that's why they want to go to DC.

czsmithGT
04-18-2012, 01:25
Yes, and its said that a good portion of the high salary is to defray that. I say, ID that portion, and cut it off. Instead:

Take reasonable amount of money, and build a permanent dorm.

Two to a room.

Group kitchen.

Bunks.

Remove the argument about how much it costs to live there by providing a clean, simple, comfortable and functional residence, efficiently run. They can even put solar panels on the roof.

It can be set back farther from the Capitol, and shuttle busses can be run when its in session.

You don't have to live there, if you happen to be wealthy, you can skip out and pay out of your own pocket to live as you like.

But once you're in, you live in the dorm, you no longer have an argument about how you need more because DC is expensive, the item is hereby taken off the table.

So, you only need money to live at your district's cost of living and your salary is adjusted accordingly.

You can even have free refills of coffee in the kitchen. Toast and eggs for breakfast, grab a burger for lunch and your dinner limit is 15 bucks.

Not so glamourous, is it? Well, you wanted to be a congressman. Maybe now you'll be here cause you really want to make a difference, and not just suck up.

I like the way you think.

stevelyn
04-18-2012, 04:07
Their pay should discourage them from sticking around very long.

mt920
04-18-2012, 04:47
I don't much care about Congressional pay. $174,000? Big whoop. It pales to the amount of money they will make by leveraging their power and connections gained in office.

That's what I care about.

Take a Newt Gingrich, for instance. Newt was a modest middle class history professor before getting into government. Now, he feeds off of big government and lo and behold, Newt's rich!

Congressional pay is a distraction to keep you from focusing on why they really want to go to DC. Lobbying gigs, BOD appointments, consulting contracts, books bought by the case.......that's why they want to go to DC.


My initial thought was to pay them for their performance, as one poster mentioned to pay them nothing until they deal will the deficit. However, I totally agree with this post. Regardless of what they're paid, they're going to find a way to make millions.

Ruble Noon
04-18-2012, 05:04
It's very expensive to live in D.C.

They shouldn't be living in DC as congress was not meant to be a full time job.

aspartz
04-18-2012, 05:12
They shouldn't be living in DC as congress was not meant to be a full time job.

Actually, I always thought it was the other way. DC had no representation because the only people that lived there were elected folks who voted at home.

ARS

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Arc Angel
04-18-2012, 05:45
Ever wonder about that? We all know congresscritters (PC expression) seem to be immune to the effects of their own legislative blunders, but how about the remuneration- what would be reasonable? .......

'Congresscritters' now that's rich! Personally I think their, 'services' should be volunteered. After all, the historical Judeo-Christian ethic is, 'Let him who would be master of all, first be a servant'. The way things are, now, there's the great salary, the great perks, and the even greater benefits.

(You can bet your local congressman isn't going to be stuck with, 'Obamacare'. You are!)

DonGlock26
04-18-2012, 06:52
I don't mind them making enough to survive in DC, but I do want them term limited.


_

oscarthegrouch
04-18-2012, 16:47
This won't be popular...Pass the Fair Tax at 26%, eliminate the IRS, whatever the estimated income to the government for the coming year IS the budget...NO CREDIT CARD!!! 10 % of the budget goes toward paying down the debt, no exception!!! Whatever congress doesn't spend is divided 435 ways, and the house members pay their own expenses out of that. The Senate goes back to being paid by the states like Congress was originally set up. The state legislature sets your pay, you answer to your constituents, not to your party! Watch this mess get cleaned up in a hurry!

Arc Angel
04-18-2012, 17:02
This won't be popular...Pass the Fair Tax at 26%, eliminate the IRS, whatever the estimated income to the government for the coming year IS the budget...NO CREDIT CARD!!! 10 % of the budget goes toward paying down the debt, no exception!!! Whatever congress doesn't spend is divided 435 ways, and the house members pay their own expenses out of that. The Senate goes back to being paid by the states like Congress was originally set up. The state legislature sets your pay, you answer to your constituents, not to your party!

Watch this mess get cleaned up in a hurry!

All of which is EXACTLY why none of your recommendations will ever be politically accepted. It's impossible to control a populus unless you are able to first redirect and then deliberately mismanage it.

'Give me control of a nation's money supply; and I care not who makes the laws.' - Baron Rothschild

certifiedfunds
04-18-2012, 17:34
This won't be popular...Pass the Fair Tax at 26%, eliminate the IRS, whatever the estimated income to the government for the coming year IS the budget...NO CREDIT CARD!!! 10 % of the budget goes toward paying down the debt, no exception!!! Whatever congress doesn't spend is divided 435 ways, and the house members pay their own expenses out of that. The Senate goes back to being paid by the states like Congress was originally set up. The state legislature sets your pay, you answer to your constituents, not to your party! Watch this mess get cleaned up in a hurry!

I'm with ya on the 17th Amendment stuff but you're smoking crack at 26%. The vast majority of Americans don't pay 26% now.

But while you're repealing the 17th, go ahead and repeal the 16th too.

zeke501
04-20-2012, 06:19
I do not understand why each state does not buy their reps. a home that is owned by the state and the type, size,and location of home and cost is determined by that state. Then you cut their salary because they have no rent or mortgage. Makes sense to me !!:cool:

Skyhook
04-20-2012, 07:05
I do not understand why each state does not buy their reps. a home that is owned by the state and the type, size,and location of home and cost is determined by that state. Then you cut their salary because they have no rent or mortgage. Makes sense to me !!:cool:

Makes sense to me, also. :beer:

I also agree with the proposal to limit terms to, say, two. (The turn-overs would have to be orchestrated so that no state ends up with all its reps being turned over at the same time, though.)
Term limits would decrease what seems to be the irresistible urge to commit shady deals in attempts to gain wealth and power.

Just imagine getting the congress to go along with that? :faint: