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.
This is a tricky issue, mainly because Congress is one of the few entities out there whose members are able to give themselves a raise with virtually no oversight. I will say that I believe Congressmen and Senators should be well compensated; legislating is a full-time job that is much harder and more important than many people give it credit for. Thus, I don't really have a problem with the current income drawn by our legislators. However, getting a raise every year is ridiculous, especially in times of economic hardship. I believe that the raises should be halted for the time being. As a long-term solution to this problem, I believe that a certain income should be decided upon for congressmen and that rate should be pegged to inflation. No more raises should be given after that, the income which was deemed adequate at the time would adjust for inflation and that would be that.
As with most companies and corporations, pay and or position is usually indicative of ability and performance. If you are a manager and you run your division into the dirt, then you shouldn't get a raise. Same should be true of government but I understand that it is a difficult thing to measure performance on.
What is not mentioned about government is that after serving in Congress or the Senate that large numbers of politicians then go into the lobbying business. While legislators they are bombarded with IOU's from various interest for promoting various pieces of legislation that may benefit one industry or special interest over another. The day they leave, they cash in those IOU's or at the very least hit the lecture circuit.
The power held in Congress and by elected officials isn't something that is accurately reflected on a mere paycheck at the end of the day. If government is so meagerly paid compared to other executive positions then why do so many seek it out?
Perhaps their pay raise should be based on job performance. For example if the economy tanks their pay will tank. If they fail to balance the budget. Thats another hit. I know let them also pay in towards their health care like the majority of those they represent. Lease cars. ie Randall if he wants a Cadillac that's fine he pays anything more than an allotted amount. Say 200 per month.
The power held in Congress and by elected officials isn't something that is accurately reflected on a mere paycheck at the end of the day. If government is so meagerly paid compared to other executive positions then why do so many seek it out?
I think you answered your own question; power itself is a great incentive to pursue certain government jobs. Congressmen are well compensated, especially when their benefits (pensions, health plans, etc) are considered, but you are right to note that lobbying and corporate jobs are far more lucrative. However, the power held by a congressmen is far greater than these other positions allow for.
They definitely do not deserve a raise. People can blame bush for all his bad policies(he was horrible president no doubt) but in the end its congress that writes the laws and approves of any direction the government is heading in. For the last 8 years congress has been absolutely horrible and have done nothing to really help the country other then create pointless laws and heavily increase government spending.
It would be interesting to see how much money these congressman had before they were elected. I think you would find that the majority of them were very wealthy or very at least very well off before their political careers. Have we ever heard of anybody in congress going hungry or living on the streets?
Under existing law, as part of a deal to give up outside income from speeches and other sources, Congress receives an automatic pay raise unless it votes otherwise. In January, Congress will receive a raise of $4700. This will increase the average Member's pay to about $174,000 or a 2.8% increase.
Does Congress deserve a raise this year? A bill was introduced to deny the pay increase, but it died in committee. Tell Congress what you think about this pay increase.
The incoming congress will include many new members who have their work cut out for them. The damage of the Bush/Cheney years will not be easy to correct. I'm very glad that so many defeated GOP congressmen will be returning to civilian life, where they can no longer damage our country with their neocon ideology and bone-headed adherance to a failed agenda set by greedy, short-sighted dullards.
So, yes! A payraise for the probelm-solving newbies is warranted!
If the situation hasn't improved over the next couple of years, come back and ask again.
Under existing law, as part of a deal to give up outside income from speeches and other sources, Congress receives an automatic pay raise unless it votes otherwise. In January, Congress will receive a raise of $4700. This will increase the average Member's pay to about $174,000 or a 2.8% increase.
Does Congress deserve a raise this year? A bill was introduced to deny the pay increase, but it died in committee. Tell Congress what you think about this pay increase.
This congress has done more damage to america's checkbook than any other and is the most unpopular and underacheiving congress in US history. They need to be happy that they'll get a dime considering how angry and furious the public is with them.
Congress deserve a pay cut, until their approve rating get above 35%.
Congressional approval ratings tend to track those of the President except for being some degree lower. The "approvers" meanwhile tend not to know anything about Congress at all. Don't know how it works...don't know who's there...don't know what the issues are. Congress is just a big black box to most folks. Easy to blame them for rainy weather. Now, if you ask all these "approvers" about their own Congressman of course, you'll get somewhat different answers, answers that depend almost entirely on whether they voted for the guy or not. If they did, well, that one's doing a pretty good job. If they didn't, well, that one's a big jerk. Can these "approvers" provide actual explanations for feeling the way they do? Rarely. Very rarely. Before we go thinking that we should hang Congressional salary on public approval, maybe we should look into how good a job the public is actually doing in carrying out all this approving. I'll suggest that the public does one flat-out terrible job of it...
Yeah, I believe someone raised this idea back in 1787. It was greeted with peals of laughter. Our government is specifically structured to put a lid on popular passions...with very good reason...
Being as smart as they are as you so claim then they should know about the sacrifices of being paupers of the public prior to running for office.
None are unaware. But what's the point? In 1969, the Congressional base salary was $42,500. Using this inflation calculator, simply to have kept pace with inflation, the Congressional base salary today would have to be $246,000. It's $169,300 instead. Perks and opportunities to earn outside income have also been slashed. Who's actually being unreasonable here???
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper
There is a reason they were once known as "public servants" as they served the public's interest. However we are bombarded daily by constant corruption at all levels of our society and government has one of the worse records are far as corrupt people go.
Give us a Freedom of Information Act that applies to the corporate sector, and we'll rather quickly change that tune.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper
I even bet that many in government started out with noble ideas, lofty goals and a true desire to make a difference and some still do. Problem is that hell is paved with those with good intentions.
Where does the road paved with BAD intentions take you? Most do come here for the first time believing and hoping that they can make a difference. Then they meet up with the House and Senate rules and realize that it's going to be a while and they'll have to get re-elected a time or two for that to happen. So they do the best they can while focusing on constituent services and building up name-recognition and campaign funds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper
As to being some of the smartest folks we could ever meet, I'm sure many of them are, but then again so was Ted Bundy.
So we should elect stupid people??? That doesn't sound promising, but in the meantime, maybe we could start out in talking about these governemnt folks with some sense of both the complexity of the problems that confront them and the range of talents and experience that they try to bring to bear in dealing with those problems. Trash-talk isn't the answer to everything. To anything, actually.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper
I will at least, as I often do, place a good bit of blame on we the people as after all it is we who elected those in office. We can whine and complain all we wish, about how rotten these folks are but we are also responsible for their very being there in the first place. Who is more the fool, the fool or the fool who follows him?
We don't really get so much flexibility in the voting booth. Maybe we should look at a system that seems so consistently to result in there being two candidates that nobody much likes. Picking the lesser of two evils doesn't mean that the winner isn't still an evil. How much blame can people take for having been put in that situation to begin with? Who was it did the putting? Where can we make the needed changes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper
How can a government be all wise and good and righteous when the very people electing them are clueless? In our Republic as in any Democratic society, the government is a reflection of its base, or is that the other way around?
Maybe this means that, as Jefferson said, the foundation of the republic is the education of the electorate. Maybe our problem here isn't so much that intellectual elites are out of touch with mainstream America. Maybe it's that mainstream America is out of touch with reality. That such as NewsMax, Limbaugh, and that lot are still with us strongly suggests that this might be the case...
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.
Does congress deserve a pay raise?
