Congress votes yes for a raise, I am shocked

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Cogman
Air fair IS paid for, so the whole argument that people that live next to Washington get paid more is bunk. Not only that, there is no rule that a congress member has to show up to vote.

So yeah, I was wrong about how much they get free. However they aren't as picked on as you imply.

You did not address or acknowledge, though, either the expense of the two residences, nor the relatively low salaries for what these people would otherwise earn.

All in all, again, I think ti's penny wise and pound foolish to obsess over their compensation, and not the issues affecting policy with trillions involved.

The last thing you want to do is to save a few dollars in a way that causes billions to get misspent. If they were making 10 millon a year, there'd be an issue with fairness.

I think I did in my previous post. Most of them have enough time to be both a senator and do whatever other job they had before. Also, once they are done in congress, whats to say that they cant sell their house there and collect a fair portion of the funds they dumped into it?

Even if you figure that they spend half of their money on housing, that's 80K to live off of. There are plenty of people that would quickly jump on a 4 day week for 80K a year, and great vacation time. Or are we going to say that most people earn over 100K a year? After all, the argument was that most people can't afford to be a congress person.

As I've repeatedly said, you are not talking about the average Americans here, you are talking about people who have responsibilities vastly exceeding their compensation.

Do you want a random person to be your votein Congress, or do you want the best person you can get - one who is able to likely earn far more outside of Congress?

The issue isn't what they can sell the DC house for later - they have to pay for it now, or rent for which they can't sell anything later.

Let's say I wanted to run for Congress. I'd face the financial burdens of any money I spent to get the campaign going, which vary; I'd face investing a lot of my time for free running, for which there's a high chance it will come to nothing, and if I won, I'd not have security beyond two years (thought the re-election rate is high), and I'd have to pay for a living situation in DC.

My own congressman may be a good example; Pete Stark. He founded a bank, before his moral convicitions about the Vietnam war led him to run, where he's stayed to pursue other moral convictions about issues like universal health care. His $100 and some K salary is not much compared to what he'd get otherwise, it's a sacrifice he makes for public service, no matter how much you want to try to spin it with phony populaism about how many people would be happy to get it.

In short, these people typically make a big financial sacrifice to be in Congress compared to their other choices - and it's in our interest for them to choose to do so, so we're not stuck with people who are happy to get that congressional salary, while the more qualified people choose not to run.

Compare their responsibilities, the size of the budgets and issues they are responsible for, with the private sector, and compare the compensation with CEO's. We get a bargain.

The law of unintended consequences applies; when low salaries make the offices more attractive for wealthy people to run and use the power for their own class interests, the public pays far more than the tiny salaries it would have had to pay to attract other, better candidates. I'll stick with the saying, 'penny wise and pound foolish' for this issue.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Craig234
One of the most idiotic 'populist' issues is worrying about the salaries of Congress.

These people oversee trillions in spending, and complex issues for all our benefit (or not).
doing a piss poor job of it, ever heard of merit pay?

There are trilllion-dollar industries out to 'influence' them, and we want them to have their basic needs met to not need 'outside help' too much from those temptations.
Basic needs is food water and shelter,I have no problem there.

We want highly skilled people attracted to serve, who will usually already be taking big pay cuts. High salaries don't guarantee good leaders, but low ones make bad leaders likely.

highly skilled? I think we failed then. Come on you know a political race is no more then a beauty contest. Most people don't even know what thier voting for.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Craig234
One of the most idiotic 'populist' issues is worrying about the salaries of Congress.

These people oversee trillions in spending, and complex issues for all our benefit (or not).

There are trilllion-dollar industries out to 'influence' them, and we want them to have their basic needs met to not need 'outside help' too much from those temptations.

We want highly skilled people attracted to serve, who will usually already be taking big pay cuts. High salaries don't guarantee good leaders, but low ones make bad leaders likely.

They make $165,200/year without the increase. If that doesn't cover their "basic needs" there's something seriously wrong. I make $60,000/year and cover not only my "basic needs" but also have enough to keep and insure 2 old Porsches, buy far more photography equipment than I need, and indulge myself in several other hobbies. (Not to mention that about $10,000 of that goes straight to the government in taxes.)

I find it funny that when this same argument is used to justify the pay of CEOs it gets dismissed, yet you're willing to use it to justify the fact that congress voted themselves a raise.

ZV

Not to mention that many of them find enough time to have ANOTHER JOB besides being a congress person. Oh, and the Free Dental, health care, ect for life. Yep, these poor men really have it tough and deserve this big pay increase, I mean, their doing such a good job.

If you don't know what you are talking about stop posting.

They do not get free healthcare, dental, etc... in fact the Fed gov does not pay for dental and/or eye insurance. They lose their rights to their benifits if they are voted out/leave and do not meet the min. years for retirement.

And their pay is not that great when you figuire they have to support 2 households, 1 in DC and 1 at their home district. Then they have to travel between both very often, and so on...

Their is a reason so many members of congress go their after being rich and/or start taking money/bribes. If the pay was higher then maybe others would step up. Yea for people that live in MD or VA the pay is decent as you only need 1 house and can just ride/drive in. But what about anything west of the Miss. River.

... If you can't speak English, then don't bother to post...

Government officials are offered a 2/3 plan where the federal government pays 2/3 of the officials medical bills and they pay the other 1/3. So I guess they don't get all their health care paid for, however it is comparable to a regular companies employment.

Air fair IS paid for, so the whole argument that people that live next to Washington get paid more is bunk. Not only that, there is no rule that a congress member has to show up to vote.

So yeah, I was wrong about how much they get free. However they aren't as picked on as you imply.

And someone showing you how wrong you are, you revert to childish remarks. And funny as I never spoke, but typed. Guess you need help in the English department.

So not only are your facts wrong but your English seems not better as well. So stop posting when you can?t even get it right the first time or the second time when you revert to an immature nature.

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: Sawyer
http://thehill.com/leading-the...-raise-2008-12-17.html

well they so deserve it, all the outstanding and hard work they do.

Well, they've given out or pledged nearly FOURTEEN TRILLION DOLLARS in USA money in the last year. (Congress and Treasury). So, a few hundred thousand to these scoundrels is modest stuff. But, I say, didn't one of them recently complain about Federal Judges getting a pay raise? LOL!

I think they should all work for $1 this year. Give them stock options in Fannie Mae and AIG!

-Robert

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Craig234
One of the most idiotic 'populist' issues is worrying about the salaries of Congress.

These people oversee trillions in spending, and complex issues for all our benefit (or not).

There are trilllion-dollar industries out to 'influence' them, and we want them to have their basic needs met to not need 'outside help' too much from those temptations.

We want highly skilled people attracted to serve, who will usually already be taking big pay cuts. High salaries don't guarantee good leaders, but low ones make bad leaders likely.

I knew Craig would be in here blabbing about how the great politicians deserve so much more than they get.

They could pay these people nothing and still get the same lot of people because 165K or 0 salary isnt what they are after. They want power and they make far more money from speaking engagement, books, or other "contributions".

The congress has more than their basic needs. They have a better retirement plan and health care than us lowly peasants. They make more than 95% of the people in this country. Taking a par raise when they berate CEO's and the country is going into the toilet economically is a complete and utter slap in the face to the tax payers.

 

[mooseracing]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
they deserve their wage far more than you deserve yours.

Why? What have they done this year? I haven't seen a single substantial accomplishment by congress for the past several years, and my standards aren't very high: I'd consider a simple federal budget a pretty significant accomplishment at this point.

More like the past 30 yrs.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki
it was my naive belief you went to Congress, did the peoples business, and went back to your original occupation.

1. What's that got to do with the fair compensation for legislators?

2. What's wrong with long-term legislators who become expert to serve the public, instead of the power of our elected leaders being diminished by being fresh inexperienced faces?

The expertise of longtime politicians from Waxman to Kennedy to Byrd IMO is invaluable to the institution's effectiveness (and even worth the downsides of the Thurmonds and Helms).

The model you speak of was more relevant to the colonioal times than modern society.

Byrd? You mentioned Byrd? :roll: Goodbye credibility!

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki
it was my naive belief you went to Congress, did the peoples business, and went back to your original occupation.

1. What's that got to do with the fair compensation for legislators?

2. What's wrong with long-term legislators who become expert to serve the public, instead of the power of our elected leaders being diminished by being fresh inexperienced faces?

The expertise of longtime politicians from Waxman to Kennedy to Byrd IMO is invaluable to the institution's effectiveness (and even worth the downsides of the Thurmonds and Helms).

The model you speak of was more relevant to the colonioal times than modern society.

Byrd? You mentioned Byrd? :roll: Goodbye credibility!

When the KKK makes its comeback we will need an experienced liason in the senate duh!

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki
it was my naive belief you went to Congress, did the peoples business, and went back to your original occupation.

1. What's that got to do with the fair compensation for legislators?

2. What's wrong with long-term legislators who become expert to serve the public, instead of the power of our elected leaders being diminished by being fresh inexperienced faces?

The expertise of longtime politicians from Waxman to Kennedy to Byrd IMO is invaluable to the institution's effectiveness (and even worth the downsides of the Thurmonds and Helms).

The model you speak of was more relevant to the colonioal times than modern society.

Byrd? You mentioned Byrd? :roll: Goodbye credibility!

When the KKK makes its comeback we will need an experienced liason in the senate duh!

How soon until Byrd has West Virginia renamed to West Byrdia, and the entire federal budget goes to that two-bit state?

 

[gorcorps]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Sawyer
http://thehill.com/leading-the...-raise-2008-12-17.html

well they so deserve it, all the outstanding and hard work they do.

they deserve their wage far more than you deserve yours.

Because they've been making such fantastic decisions as of late. :disgust: