Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Reading this article and seeing how Debbie Wasserman Schultz makes an annual salary of $174,000 while the median salary for individuals in her district is only $54,194 got me thinking. Why should Debbie make $174,000 when the median salary of her constituents is a mere $54,194? In the private sector salary is generally tied to performance, so why not hold Congress to the same standard? Why not cap their salary at the average of their constituents? The more your constituents make, the higher your salary, basically merit-based pay. My guess is that if the idea were ever seriously considered, the Democrats would balk at it because as we all know most people in Democrat districts don't have a salary because they don't work. In other words the Democrats would be held accountable for their failed voodoo economics of robbing the productive class to pay off their campaign contributors and voters. Your thoughts?
1. This suggestion has nothing to do with merit-based pay, and everything to do with the distribution of incomes and living costs in various parts of the country.
2. The claim that "most people in Democrat [sic] districts don't have a salary because they don't work" is just a lie.
3. The fiscal policies that are governing our country today, from the tax rates to the rates of expenditures, are largely those set by the Republican Party.
I would agree with it but also tied to hourly wages (divide average wage by 40 hour work week). And no benefits on tax dollars. If you want to "serve" the country, you shouldn't be a leach for life. But then, with money being speech, they have their sponsors anyway. That ought to stop as well.
Reading this article and seeing how Debbie Wasserman Schultz makes an annual salary of $174,000 while the median salary for individuals in her district is only $54,194 got me thinking. Why should Debbie make $174,000 when the median salary of her constituents is a mere $54,194? In the private sector salary is generally tied to performance, so why not hold Congress to the same standard? Why not cap their salary at the average of their constituents? The more your constituents make, the higher your salary, basically merit-based pay. My guess is that if the idea were ever seriously considered, the Democrats would balk at it because as we all know most people in Democrat districts don't have a salary because they don't work. In other words the Democrats would be held accountable for their failed voodoo economics of robbing the productive class to pay off their campaign contributors and voters. Your thoughts?
Well, the lower the pay, the worse the candidate you get and it's an important job. Do what the private sector does. Pay professionals appropriately.
That would make them look out for their constituents well being.
Change that: They should have an equal base salary - maybe based on the nationwide income, then the constituents income can be a bonus add-on. How would you get anyone in West Virginia (for example) to serve where they have large pockets of low income earners? So there should be some base salary to start.
I'm sure someone could come up with a flaw in that plan...
Why would i want more dummies than in congress now?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
