Retiring House Republican says $174,000 isn't enough money for members of Congress: 'Most of us don't have wealth'
Retiring House Republican says $174,000 isn't enough money for members of Congress: 'Most of us don't have wealth'
He's not alone: AOC and others have argued lawmakers should be paid more in order to protect against corruption and make the job more accessible.
He's not alone: AOC and others have argued lawmakers should be paid more in order to protect against corruption and make the job more accessible.
Congressional wages should be 2.13 per hour. They're already heavily tipped.
I 100% disagree, but this is hilarious and I will definitely find myself repeating it. Good job.
What about the rest of us, who manage to scrape by on 60K or less after y’all have already taxed away a third of it? Where’s our relief you whiny shit? 💩
It’s about the market I’m afraid - someone with the attributes necessary to be an effective politician is likely to be able to use those skills to get a top management job in a big company and earn > 200k easily. If the gap between that and the politicians salary is too great then the only people who become politicians will have other strong other motives, which may be noble, but are often narcissistic or corrupt.
To be fair, they do typically need staff that are paid by themselves. They need a residence in DC and their home state too.
Agree with your point, but man I didn't realize 60k was considered "scraping by" now
If you want your politicians to be loyal to a country, you pay them. If you want them to be loyal to corporate interests, you let the corporations pay them. It is obvious the path the US has chosen. Contrast that with Singapore for an example of paying your elite government officials an actual salary and how corruption drops to zero.
You're not wrong but it's easy to mix up actual loyalty and being the highest bidder.
Whereas in America, we could pay them millions and there'd still be constant grift. This country has lost any sense of accountability. Too goddamn individualist.
That's the same logic as prople saying we should keep the churches tax free, so they don't interfere in politics, even thoigh they're tax free now and already interfering with politics.
We already overpay them and they already take bribes.
They make deer $100k a year and have so many subsidies like for housing and travel. We could pay them millions and they would still take bribes. The problem is our economic model that puts money over people and our social values that puts power over people. And Singapore still has corruption!
$100k/yr plus benefits is nothing. That's a junior engineer salary. You want the people guiding the way your entire country runs to be paid less than the UPS driver that hands you cat food in a box. Doesn't make sense.
Pay politicians a salary that would make taking bribes useless and you'll find they won't. It will also attract better candidates. If you keep trying to elect bottom feeders for the lowest possible salary, you get what you have now.
But $7.50 is apparently enough.
If only they were paid the federal minimum wage. They might be a little more in touch with reality
Then tell people to stop voting Republican 🤷♂️
'Most of us don't have wealth'
God damn it, he's so close.
It might still be true that someone could be refused a top secret clearance if they had too many debts. The theory is that if someone is under financial strain, they're easier to bribe.
As much as it might not feel good, it might be logical to pay congresspeople more, if it can be shown it makes them less susceptible to bribery.
And, while $174,000 seems like a lot, even someone like AOC thinks it's not enough. One problem is that they're legally required to have two residences, one in their district, and another one in DC. So, she needs to pay full-time rent on a place in DC ($2500 / month) and her district in NY (say $2000 / month). That's $54k per year just on rent. I don't know what the other costs are, but the people who get to congress who aren't rich already often seem to struggle.
To me it makes sense that congressional reps be paid enough that they're not under any financial strain. It means it's harder to bribe them, and that they can focus on doing their job instead of on their personal finances.
Or...instead...why not just have a residence building in DC for various representatives? Why are they furnishing their own spaces? Just give them a dorm room for their term and have them clear out when they are voted out or reach term limits.
I don't mind paying them more. Make it a lucrative career. You know what... Why not $5mil/year. Attract the best and the brightest... Maybe.
But make the consequences count. Any hint of malfeasance... Any remote indication that they are betraying the will of the people, make them pay it all back and put them in jail. Like... We see that you took money from Comcast, then voted favorably on their bill. Jail.
Yep, this. I'd be fine with rather huge increases to their salaries on one hand, and with the other I'd:
-
Ban them from owning stocks
-
Limit employment options in senior positions of large companies for x time after their term ends
-
Outlaw personal gifts and favourable treatment (gifts should go to the state)
etc.
-
I don't know about $5m per year, but based on the importance of the job, a high six-figure salary makes sense. But, yeah, that has to be paired with a contract / oath that locks them down much more than an ordinary person. Instead of getting a free pass to do insider trading, any insider trading is punished harshly. Instead of a revolving door between congress and lobbying, require at least 5 years between leaving congress and doing any kind of lobbying work.
It should be the same sort of deal with being a supreme court justice. It should be a job where you never have money worries. But, also one where you're forbidden from getting any other income or substantial gifts. If you want to be a motivational speaker as a justice, great, but you can't make a cent doing that. If you want to write a book, wonderful, but as a justice anything you write (even on your own time) immediately goes into the public domain.
One problem is that they're legally required to have two residences, one in their district, and another one in DC
They are not required to have a residence in DC, many members of Congress sleep in their offices to save money. There's nothing saying they couldn't commute to work.
Also, the House only meets for 4-5 hours, approximately 160 days a year, and they regularly skip sessions.
I've heard this argument before, and I call bullshit.
Having more money does not protect you from greed, dishonesty, or susceptabiliy to bribes. Proof surrounds us, but you need look no further than Trump. Not as rich as he'd like you to believe, but born with a silver spoon in his mouth and certainly wealthy, and one of the crookedest, corrupt motherfuckers in the public eye.
AOC embarrases herself repeating that patently false position.
I 100% agree, if you'd take a bribe at $174k as a civil servant then you'd take a bribe at any price point. Raising pay doesn't stop corruption, at best it just raises the price a bit. Trump was supposedly selling pardons for $2 million, he issued 143 pardons (let's say he was only paid on 10% of those). That's $28 million in bribes.
If we have to match the bribes to stop corruption then $28 million times 535 members of Congress is $15 billion.
I have no type of economics experience, but what if representatives of a demographic of people should be paid the median wage of those people, with high punishment for corruption and bribes?
If they would like to earn more, they should lift their states's lowest wages. This goes down to all levels, a mayor of a city only earns the median wage of the city. It is a civil servant job after all, it shouldn't be glamorous.
This is a good idea in theory, but it doesn't really hold up when you look at what we ask reps to do.
They have to maintain two households, basically, and have a lot of travel expenses.
State legislatures are a great sandbox to review how pay impacts the folks who can afford to hold seats. Turns out, the less they're paid, the more likely they are to be independently wealthy. You will never "show them what it's like" to be poor by paying them less - you'll just ensure that actual normal people can't afford to take the position.
I think it was Maine that had a fully volunteer legislature? And had the richest legislature ever.
Ultimately, this is another problem of America trying to retain an agricultural mindset (part time legislature so that everyone could go home to farm), despite the world having changed.
So if they have to keep up two household, let them have two average incomes. It would still be less.
The average income in Alabama is 49K per year. The average cost of living in DC is 78k per year. Representatives need to have a home in their district while also working in DC.
The best outcome of your change would be to limit being a representative to someone already rich enough to not need their salary
If not, since your proposal heavily prevents corruption and bribes, you'd be forcing the Rep to work a second job or be homeless
Congress should be paid based on a minimum wage factor and that rate should be locked for 20 years.
Exactly! Cause then "maybe" they feel a bit more inclined to care for the interest/needs of poor folks
Aww, did he forget to make sure he had five years of savings? Did he not make sure his retirement plan would be enough to cover his desired lifestyle once he no longer had a normal income? Perhaps he could pick up a part time job at the local Walmart to afford his insurance needs.
He really should have cut back on his avocado toast consumption.
While empathize with the sentiment, if pay alone is figured, $174k for two households (one in DC, one in their district) plus flights and etc doesn't allow for a huge amount of savings especially if you are in a high cost of living district.
Now do they nearly always find ways to supplement that pay in legal ways, yes. But the question is do we want them beholden to those supplement ways? Or do we want them clear thinking and loyal to the voters who put them there?
And then the question becomes. Why don’t they just take both?
But the question is do we want them beholden to those supplement ways?
As though that will change regardless of how much we waste on them.
Let me turn this around for y'all: how much would you pay politicians if you wanted to maximize corruption?
$0
Or, require payment from them.
Can't they just do insider trading like the other politicians in the US? Gotta pull yourself up by those bootstraps.
While it sounds absurd, between travel expenses and needing to maintain residency in the state and the very expensive DC, $174,000 really doesn't stretch very far. Instead of just paying them more, a housing and transit stipend might be prudent.
I read a proposal a while back about creating a dorm-like apartment complex for legislators that would be included free with the job with strong incentives to live there over private homes. This would also have the added benefit of improving personal relationships between the representatives so that they would be more inclined to work together and collaborate across party lines.
It also makes it easier for private citizens to, uh, replace large sections of government in one fell swoop
Yeah, I’d be much more inclined to agree with your last sentence. The fact that a second residency and travel is required, means they should be covered by their employer. In this case, that’s us, which means it should be covered by our taxes.
If this was any other profession, it wouldn’t be an out of pocket cost.
Guess I'll just have to take over the position, then, since I know how to live within my means.
I am not fundamentally against giving Congress a pay raise, their last pay raise was in 2009 and it's probably time to give them a cost of living adjustment. I'm not opposed to giving Congress a pay raise to encourage a wider range or people to run in the hope that we can have better Congressmen. There are Congressmen who come from already expensive areas where $174,000 isn't a lot (such as AOC) and so they may need more pay. Washington is an expensive place and so are the surrounding areas, there is an argument that they need high pay to run their house in their home state and pay for expenses in DC.
The problem I have is with the argument that paying Congress more would either help eliminate corruption or that Congressmen can make more money working somewhere else.
The first paragraph of arguments is a real discussion and should be solved. Patrick McHenry doesn't fit that criteria. $174k is a very good wage in his district and a quick search of some public records shows he has owned multiple properties and even owns a separate lake property as well.
So if living very comfortably, almost lavishly in comparison to the people in his district, isn't enough then what is? What is the lifestyle expectation for a Congressman? I personally don't think a Congressional job should be about making people wealthy. If this isn't enough then nothing would be.
Greed affects both the underpaid an the overpaid people tho
I mean, I make about the same and struggle to afford my house and two cars in California. My wife doesn't work and we have a second baby on the way.
I wonder if this further incentives taking unsavory money?
I feel like they should get paid some function of minimum wage, to incentivise the lifting up of all workers instead.
I think that federal wages should be supplemented by state pay to account for high cost of living states and counties.
$175k may not be a high wage in areas of California, but in most parts of the country it's enough to outright buy a house and live very very well.
California has a cost of living problem