Pity The Poor Congressfolk Who Cannot Get A Pay Raise

[Aeson]

Yah... I really feel sorry for them.

While keeping a family home in their district, and an apartment in DC is surely more expensive than living at home, there are people in this country who have to do the same type of thing as well, some on less than 20k a year. I don't feel sorry for our reps who consistantly deny the poorest workers in the country the right to protection, to a wage that keeps up with inflation and provides adequate health coverage.

I especially don't feel sorry for them when they "work" on average 152 days a year. 72 last year... Not to mention salary is only a part of the issue. The perks of office extend far beyond a paycheck.

Yah, most of them work very hard still... but it's campaigning they give their all to, not running the country. But even if they worked hard 16 hour days 7 days a week, they're still overpaid. Because there are those they represent who work those hours for far, far less.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by snoopy369
The $2800 will have no effect whatsoever to the millionaires one way or the other. It just means a few more people will decide they can't afford to run for congress ...

Anyone who thinks $165k (+ benefits) isn't enough to pay for their living expenses while a representative should not be entrusted with a dime of taxpayer money... because they have no economic sense whatsoever.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by snoopy369


I agree absolutely ... honestly, Oerdin et al, the people this is affecting are not the rich $%#holes, but the congressmen/women who are NOT rich, and actually need the money. The $2800 will have no effect whatsoever to the millionaires one way or the other. It just means a few more people will decide they can't afford to run for congress ...

Realistically what percentage of congress critters fall into the category of actually needing the money? Further thanks to McCain Feingold it makes the likelihood of "Mr. Smith Going to Washington" types even less likely. I'd venture there are quite a few silver spoon halfwits on capital hill.

[Kuciwalker]

Yah, most of them work very hard still... but it's campaigning they give their all to, not running the country. But even if they worked hard 16 hour days 7 days a week, they're still overpaid. Because there are those they represent who work those hours for far, far less.

Does that make any sense whatsoever? (No.)

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Does that make any sense whatsoever? (No.)

There, there, Kuci... Reading is difficult. Not being able to understand is nothing to be ashamed of. Neither is being incapable of deciding whether your question should be rhetorical, or if you should answer it yourself.

Don't trouble your poor little head figuring it out. It's ok.

[Kuciwalker]

I am bested.

[Kuciwalker]

Honestly, Jon Miller has brought up the only decent counterargument. I'm still working on a response to that one.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Actually Kuci, money means little to these folk. Its all about power. Incenting with more money has very little liklihood of increasing the quality of the average congress critter.

[Arrian]

Non-rich congresspeople? Yeah, right. Maybe a couple in the House. Maybe.

-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Arrian
Non-rich congresspeople? Yeah, right. Maybe a couple in the House. Maybe.

-Arrian

Guaranteed once they leave office their friends they took care of while in office will ensure they are taken care of.

[Arrian]

Cushy jobs (boardmembership?) at companies to whom they gave contracts, etc.

-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Arrian
Cushy jobs (boardmembership?) at companies to whom they gave contracts, etc.

-Arrian

I was thinking more like Union board members personally.

[Arrian]

Flip side. Between us, we've got 'em all covered.

-Arrian

[Sava]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


QFT. Congressional salaries are absurd[ly low].

Paying people in Congress higher salaries wouldn't accomplish anything. It takes an absurd amount of money to get elected in the first place. People need to have money to get elected. Power motivates people to seek government office, not money.

If you want to attract better people to government, how about pay bureaucrats more?

Politicians may be the public face of the policies, but they don't really do much other than sign off on things, shake hands, kiss babies, etc. It's the millions of non-elected federal employees that create and manage the federal government that we should be worrying about. Politicians come and go, but the bureaucracy remains. If we attract better people to the bureaucracy, we won't need to worry about whatever dumbass the people vote into power.

The goal should be to limit the number of political appointees in the various branches of the federal bureaucracy, attract competent people to the federal government by offering competitive salaries and benefits, and limiting the impact that a loosely interpreted set of standards can have on government's power. This can be achieved by proper oversight, defined roles, and proper enforcement.

Unfortunately, such reform is unlikely to occur.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Sava


If you want to attract better people to government, how about pay bureaucrats more?

All for it as long as there are accountabilites for year over year improvements in performance. Kinda like what free market automatically enforces.