Pay Cut For Congress: Yea Or Nay?

[Pogo]

On Thursday, Billionaire House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said she was against cutting Congressional pay because it would undermine the dignity of her job. But what do you all think?

By the way (and I ask this laughingly since there's no other way) -- where's your source for any of this? ("Billionaire"? in the House?)
Where's the quote? Where's the link? Where's the issue? Where's anything?

YouTube? Alex Jones? Behind a green screen?
Or maybe it got "burned alive"....?? By the "LAPD"?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

On Thursday, Billionaire House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said she was against cutting Congressional pay because it would undermine the dignity of her job. But what do you all think?

I think anything that undermines her dignity will have a net positive effect on the entire universe.

 

[hjmick]

On Thursday, Billionaire House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said she was against cutting Congressional pay because it would undermine the dignity of her job. But what do you all think?

By the way (and I ask this laughingly since there's no other way) -- where's your source for any of this? ("Billionaire"? in the House?)
Where's the quote? Where's the link? Where's the issue? Where's anything?

YouTube? Alex Jones? Behind a green screen?
Or maybe it got "burned alive"....?? By the "LAPD"?

Yeah she's not a billionaire.

Pelosi, the 13th wealthiest member, reported a minimum net worth of $26 million. Among her assets is a $5 million to $25 million investment in the Sacramento Mountain Lions of the United Football League, owned by her husband Paul.

Read more: Feinstein, Pelosi among richest in Congress - SFGate

From the same article:

Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, tops the list with a minimum net worth of $306 million, roughly 4,000 times greater than the average American household. His wife, Linda, is the daughter of Lowry Mays, founder and CEO of Clear Channel Communications.

Makes one wonder...

Why do some of these people bother to draw a salary?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

On Thursday, Billionaire House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said she was against cutting Congressional pay because it would undermine the dignity of her job. But what do you all think?

what is it w/ you people & the inability to provide links? Anyway: Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution

What's your point? It would be entirely possible for Congress to pass a law that cut their pay to the minimum wage, and have it take affect after the next election. This would accomplish two things, it would cut their pay to exactly what they contribute to the economy, and it would get rid of the people who think it is undignified to work for minimum wage.

The second one alone should be enough for everyone to support it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The issue has nothing to do with congressional pay, but the failure of voters to hold elected representatives accountable.

Whatever the perceived failures of Congress, the blame lies with the voters.

Can't argue with that, but cutting their pay would stop them from soaking the people who don't vote for them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

At $177,000 a year

They are underpaid

What is it that they do that is worth that much money?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The President should make $1 million a year
Senators, Cabinet Officers and Supreme Court Justices should make $250,000
Congressmen should make $200,000

Then they would be evil rich people and we can't have evil rich people running the country.

That is not excessive pay for an executive position

They do not have executive positions They work for the poor people who have to take undignified jobs to support themselves, they do not run a goddam thing.

 

[Pogo]

From the same article:

Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, tops the list with a minimum net worth of $306 million, roughly 4,000 times greater than the average American household. His wife, Linda, is the daughter of Lowry Mays, founder and CEO of Clear Channel Communications.

Makes one wonder...

hmmm.... Clear Channel, which owns 850 radio stations and Premiere Networks, which distributes Rush Limbaugh... and her husband is a Congresscritter....

​

 

[hjmick]

From the same article:

Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, tops the list with a minimum net worth of $306 million, roughly 4,000 times greater than the average American household. His wife, Linda, is the daughter of Lowry Mays, founder and CEO of Clear Channel Communications.

Makes one wonder...

hmmm.... Clear Channel, which owns 850 radio stations and Premiere Networks, which distributes Rush Limbaugh... and her husband is a Congresscritter....

​

You noticed... LOL

 

[Pogo]

From the same article:
Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, tops the list with a minimum net worth of $306 million, roughly 4,000 times greater than the average American household. His wife, Linda, is the daughter of Lowry Mays, founder and CEO of Clear Channel Communications.


Makes one wonder...

hmmm.... Clear Channel, which owns 850 radio stations and Premiere Networks, which distributes Rush Limbaugh... and her husband is a Congresscritter....

​

You noticed... LOL

I don't know why I picked up on that, just seems significant somehow... convict of intrust... conflect of interns... what was it......

Ah, it's prolly nothing. I don't know what I was thinking; I'm sure the good Congressman brings nothing but the best interests of his conflicts to that august body.
Uh, sorry, I mean his "con$tituent$".

Irony alert: in the 112th Congress, McCaul was on the Ethics Committee.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The President should make $1 million a year
Senators, Cabinet Officers and Supreme Court Justices should make $250,000
Congressmen should make $200,000

Then they would be evil rich people and we can't have evil rich people running the country.

That is not excessive pay for an executive position

They are not executives. They produce nothing they add nothing to the economy. All politicians do is try to fihure out how to take more of our money,

They are more liked organized crime.

 

[Cuyo]

Really? I'm the only one as of now that says nay? The ONLY one?

My gripe is that we want our lawmakers to be the best and brightest... Most of the people in such positions are talented lawyers and communicators who could make a lot more in private practice as it is. Cutting their pay would be an insult ($174k for Senators, hardly Rockafeller money); and while most of them are already wealthy before they assume office, it's hardly due to the salary they make therein...

My take anyway. :shrug:

 

[Skull Pilot]

Really? I'm the only one as of now that says nay? The ONLY one?

My gripe is that we want our lawmakers to be the best and brightest... Most of the people in such positions are talented lawyers and communicators who could make a lot more in private practice as it is. Cutting their pay would be an insult ($174k for Senators, hardly Rockafeller money); and while most of them are already wealthy before they assume office, it's hardly due to the salary they make therein...

My take anyway. :shrug:

The best way to get rich is to serve in Congress. They don't need any more of our money.

Don't you ever wonder how a guy who only makes 170K a year can retire a multi millionaire after a few years serving in Congress?

 

[Harry Dresden]

At $177,000 a year

They are underpaid

you are right RW.....when they are actually doing the Country some good.....right now they suck.....and their approval rating backs that up....if you suck at your job and ask your boss for a raise.....what do you think he/she will tell ya?....

 

[percysunshine]

Who gives a shit what Congress critters get paid? They are barrowing money so fast that their yearly paycheck can't cover the interest on their last brain fart.

 

[rightwinger]

Then they would be evil rich people and we can't have evil rich people running the country.

That is not excessive pay for an executive position

They do not have executive positions They work for the poor people who have to take undignified jobs to support themselves, they do not run a goddam thing.

I'm afraid they do

Being a congressman or Senator, as much as we despise them, is a difficult position with a large executive and political skill set

 

[rightwinger]

Really? I'm the only one as of now that says nay? The ONLY one?

My gripe is that we want our lawmakers to be the best and brightest... Most of the people in such positions are talented lawyers and communicators who could make a lot more in private practice as it is. Cutting their pay would be an insult ($174k for Senators, hardly Rockafeller money); and while most of them are already wealthy before they assume office, it's hardly due to the salary they make therein...

My take anyway. :shrug:

That $174K we pay our Congressmen also sets the limit on what we pay ambassadors, cabinet level officers, secretarys of defense and state and all key advisors

You ultimately get what you pay for

 

[Oldguy]

The issue has nothing to do with congressional pay, but the failure of voters to hold elected representatives accountable.

Whatever the perceived failures of Congress, the blame lies with the voters.

But, of course, the right won't get it because they've fallen into the victim mentality they so often rail against when it comes to the poor. They're victims of Obama, of the liberal MSM, of progressive ideas, of Democrats, of whatever...on and on and on, ad nauseum.

 

[Oldguy]

Really? I'm the only one as of now that says nay? The ONLY one?

My gripe is that we want our lawmakers to be the best and brightest... Most of the people in such positions are talented lawyers and communicators who could make a lot more in private practice as it is. Cutting their pay would be an insult ($174k for Senators, hardly Rockafeller money); and while most of them are already wealthy before they assume office, it's hardly due to the salary they make therein...

My take anyway. :shrug:

No, I said nay too.

Why? Because that's really not a lot of money for what they do. Most people have no idea what being a member of Congress entails or how expensive it really is.

For instance...did you know that members of Congress are required BY THE CONSTITUTION to maintain an actual residence in their state or district? AND, they must have a place to live in Washington, DC, which is among the highest cost of living cities in America. The average rent is $1900 per month. Some of them bunk down in cooperative housing like the House on C Street, or share apartments because of the expense. Having two residences is not cheap.

Their work day isn't confined to the few hours the two Houses are session. Not by a long shot. They typically work 12-16 hour days, meeting with constituents (anybody who can pass through a metal detector can walk right into their office), attending briefings and committee meetings, doing research or meeting with staff members, crafting legislation, going to the ends of the earth to "see for themselves" and spending time raising funds for the next election or visiting with the folks back home. It's a grueling, tiring, exhausting schedule which most who think they are overpaid could not survive.

Moreover, they have the exact same benefit package as any other federal employee and must allocate money out of their salary for healthcare and retirement benefits, in addition to the same payroll taxes the rest of us have to deal with. That cuts down on their take home pay the same as it does for you, but their expenses most likely exceed yours.

Why do you think so many members of Congress are millionaires? It's because average Joe's, like us, can't afford to be a member.

Instead of a pay cut, I think they need a very substantial raise, enough so that normal folks can afford to run and still feed their families.

 

[Pogo]

Really? I'm the only one as of now that says nay? The ONLY one?

My gripe is that we want our lawmakers to be the best and brightest... Most of the people in such positions are talented lawyers and communicators who could make a lot more in private practice as it is. Cutting their pay would be an insult ($174k for Senators, hardly Rockafeller money); and while most of them are already wealthy before they assume office, it's hardly due to the salary they make therein...

My take anyway. :shrug:

I don't necessarily want the best and brightest, not at all. I want them to be the most representativist, i.e. the most reflective of my wishes. That's what they're (supposed to be) there for. That doesn't take talent; it just takes integrity.

It's estimated that 37% of Congresscritters are lawyers. Lawyers make up 0.36% of the population. That means attorneys are overrepresented in Congress by a factor of a hundred. At least.

There are way too many damn lawyers in Congress. I understand the advantage of having one there; I don't understand the advantage of having a hundred times the population. That ain't representation.