Something to consider...

[CaliforniaPeggy]

[NYC_SKP]

1. Oh, yes, please. Just for one year. How hard can THAT be?

But then think of the insight a the new blood would bring to the Capital building.

Make that three years, weed out the riff-raff!

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. I LIKE how you think, my dear NYC_SKP!

[NYC_SKP]

4. GMTA, sister!

[Live and Learn]

3. It would only have affect the few that aren't millionaires already.

Hardly seems fair to punish the ones that actually count on a congressional salary to make ends meet.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

5. I thought the vast majority were millionaires...

I haven't seen any hard data on this, though...



I certainly wouldn't want to punish the ones that aren't responsible for our suffering.

[Marie Marie]

6. Then we can watch them all scurry to K Street like the rats that they are.

They would all be working for lobbying firms faster than the speed of light and at a salary that far exceeds their congressional paychecks. But I do like the idea of trying to picture them surviving on minimum wage - that would be fun.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

8. Oh, phooey. You're right; that's what they'd do.

Of course, they do that anyway...

ARGHHHH.

[Ace Acme]

41. Exactly. They'd make it up on off-the-books payments in nothing flat. nt

[Voice for Peace]

7. big k/r

[1000words]

9. And make them live in public housing, use public transport and live on SNAP.

Bet funding, for all, becomes top priorities next federal budget negotiation.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

10. YES, absolutely!

Is there any hope that they might learn something???

[1000words]

15. Somewhere along the line ...

some have lost sight that an elected position is public *service.*

[jmowreader]

49. It is, but honor doesn't pay the light bill

I've said this before and will say it again: the people who have what it takes to be really excellent congressmen also have what it takes to be really excellent $1 million/year executives. Given the option of making $1 million per year or $165,000, which would you do? And the $1 million jobs generally don't come with the requirement to continually beg for money so you can go home every other year and beg for your job back.

Here is what we should do to fix Congress.

Step 1 is to have a panel of 100 citizens from across the political spectrum select the best Democratic congressman and the best Republican congressman. We will designate these two people Mentors.

Step 2 is to kick the rest of the House out four months before the end of the session. They're not doing a fucking thing anyway; we can run the country with continuing resolutions and bureaucrats until Step 4 happens.

Step 3 is to amend the Constitution to allow the House members and the President to serve five years and Senators to serve 10, with two classes of Senators and elections held once every five years. The Congress we have legislates for a year and campaigns for a year; if we leave them in there five years we get 80 percent of their attention as opposed to 50 percent of it. (Step 3 can be done via a Constitutional Convention: two-thirds of the states petition Congress for a convention to consider this, and if two-thirds of the states approve in their conventions it's a done deal. It's only been done once, but it's been done.)

Step 4 is to hold an election. Anyone who's been a Congressman in the last two years is ineligible. Anyone who wins gets a job that pays $1 million per year and comes with a house in a gated Congressional housing development. (I'm not talking mansions here, just nice mid-market hootches...four bedrooms, two and a half baths, 1800 square feet on one level with a two-car garage and a patio.) It also comes with the understanding that campaign contributions will be illegal going forward: all campaigns will receive a fixed amount of federal funding and if you run out, oh well.

Step 5 is for the Mentors to train the new Congress.

[1000words]

50. I like how you think

Admittedly, my statement is more venting frustration than presenting a viable model. Yours at least addresses some of the core concepts, while avoiding the air of punishment or subservience.

[fierywoman]

11. ... and work more than one job ...

...and they have to pay for their own health care, and NO PENSION !!!

[CaliforniaPeggy]

13. Not sure I'd want to go that far...

We still want to have good people running for office...

I think I understand where you're coming from, though...

After the way they've abused us for all this time, it's hard not to want a little revenge...

Welcome to DU!

[calimary]

17. Welcome to DU, fierywoman!

Glad you're here! Only problem with that is - they'd pay more attention to that other job and we want them working singlemindedly for us. But your basic idea is sound as can be. They should know and taste and feel how the Least of These lives, up close 'n' personal. They don't have any way to sympathize or empathize. Maybe it's time they learned what the really difficult kind of "public dole" is, rather than the cushy taxpayer-funded version they enjoy now. Walk in the other guy's shoes. And then see what you think about that austerity and trickle-down crap!

[marble falls]

12. Give them cardboard signs and squeegees and let them beg. And ban lobbyists.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

14. I think that may be a bit much.

There's no need to run them into the ground, after all...

I do understand where you're coming from.

[marble falls]

16. They have no problems with homelessness, unemployment, the uninsured, hunger ......

so give them a taste. Ban lobbyists either way

[TexasTowelie]

18. Eliminate lobbyists

and let Congressmen pay for their meals with SNAP benefits. House them in the projects in DC and make them take public transportation to work.

[obxhead]

19. Eliminate stock trading by the members as well.

[dchill]

20. That seems eminently fair to me.

Why not?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

21. Exactly.

[bearssoapbox]

22. That's all they're worth.

Since they do minimum work.

[TeamPooka]

23. Then you're stuck with b/millionaires and the corrupt ones. nt

[Live and Learn]

28. +1 nt

[passiveporcupine]

24. I love this!

Maybe your compensation should be determined by your current wealth. If you are wealthy and can live off what you already have, you work for minimum wage and your pension is based on your wages...progressive. If you are lower income, or middle class and actually need a reasonable wage to do the job, your salary and pension are adjusted to be fair. A progressive system, just like taxes.

But right now, until a fairer minimum wage system is voted in, let them all get it. I like the way you think Peggy.

[/rubbing my hands together gleefully]

[AzDar]

25. Awesome idea!

Of course, most aren't even worth that...

[A Simple Game]

26. I have said for some time now that the solution for our Representatives is to

keep them in their home district. Let them vote electronically. Make them stay home for the majority of the time and have to live with the people they represent not their fellow Representatives and lobbyists. When they go out to dinner the people would see who they dine with, when they play golf, the people would see who they play golf with, etc.

[Triana]

27. YES! And no taxpayer-funded HC or retirement...AND

no salary/pay once they leave office. They should be expected to return to private sector work ie: non-gov't paid.

IOW when they're in office: min wage, minimal bennies (whatever Wal-Mart offers). When they leave office - nothing. Get a job elsewhere. Retire on Social Security and whatever savings they have. Use Medicare for HC or get a plan thru private employer or thru ACA.

These shitsters should be forced to eat their own cat food - the same cat food they are constantly trying to reduce everyone else in the country to eating to survive.

Oh boy would things CHANGE then. We could call it: The Congressional Attitude Adjustment Bill

[BKH70041]

29. And the WH, too. Minimum is still too much money for all of them.

[rhett o rick]

30. I would require each to spend 6 weeks working at a fast food franchise

for Bobby the 18 year old manager.

[PowerToThePeople]

31. Honestly, are they not PUBLIC SERVANTS?

In many areas servants are paid less than minimum wage with their tips (Lobbyist money) making up for the difference between what their employer pays and the actual minimum wage.

[Egalitarian Thug]

32. Sympathetic to the sentiment, but this would be about the worst thing we could do.

[MineralMan]

33. Serving in Congress should be such an honor for those elected,

that they would take no pay at all for serving. That has always been my opinion. One does not get that honor without having achieving some success in life, since it requires years of public recognition before running for Congress.

If someone with minimal income or wealth ever got elected, a stipend equal to the average individual income in the U.S. should be paid to that member. Otherwise, all members would serve without pay, since it is an honor to be elected to serve.

That is my opinion.

[malthaussen]

34. Used to be that way.

Well, not in the US Congress, but in other democratic assemblies. Parliament being a good example, they did not start paying MPs until Reform.

It doesn't work out as you might expect. While paying legislators (and other government officials) does create the monster of the career politician or bureaucrat, it doesn't really create corruption. Corruption comes with the territory. The idea of paying legislators was to free them from being bought and sold to the highest bidder, which was much more overt before Reform than after (and one reason why we decided to pay ours right from the start). If you look at the history of, say, the ruling councils of Italian city-states during the Renaissance, where members were often elected by a democratic or quasi-democratic process (or even chosen by lot!), you find that they generally used their offices to advance the goals of their family or faction interest. Yet at the same time, public office was more often seen as a "burden" than an honor, because the same officials not only did not receive pay, but lost revenue due to time lost from their other pursuits. If you read the Declaration of Independence, one of the complaints is the burden and expense of travel and lodging to legislative assemblies called in inhospitable and out-of-the-way locations. They weren't kidding, travel was tedious, expensive and dangerous in the 18th century.

In modern times, what politician does not make mouth-noises about the honor and privilege of "serving" his countrymen? Yet they continue to often serve themselves, first. If you don't pay legislators and other government officials, than only an individual with other means can serve. Whose interests are they going to serve, in that case?

-- Mal

[MineralMan]

35. I suggest campaigns that are 100% taxpayer funded.

I did mention that those elected who have no outside income or wealth should be given a stipend equal to the average individual income in the US.

What I'd like to see is the removal of any possible influence through campaign contributions and a return to it being an honor to serve in elective office. I do not see honor of service as one of the driving factors today. Today, it's more the opportunities of being elected to Congress that attracts candidates.

Taxpayer funded campaigns of short duration are, I believe, key in reforming our legislative system, frankly.

[malthaussen]

37. Yeah, I like that idea myself. But...

... good luck with it. Buying and selling influence is as old as the political process. I seriously think we'd have to reform our entire social system -- based as it is on the love of Mammon -- to create a legislature in which the honor of service, and the devotion to the good of all, and not factional good, is the motivating force. And then there is still the problem of a religious or other ideological motivation driving the legislator or official.

-- Mal

[JEB]

36. A taste of austerity would do them good.

[bvar22]

38. ...and send THEIR kids to the nearest Public School.

Our Education System would be "fixed" over night.

[spanone]

39. they would immediately raise it to 170,000 a year

[Tumbulu]

40. I hate these ideas

I want professionals representing me. Congresspeople make no more than most dentists or doctors and far less than most lawyers. I do not want to limit my representatives to people who are only able to serve me because they already have the money to do so.

Even with what they make salary wise, most of them and their staff cannot afford to even live in DC anymore.

The less they make, the more subject to bribery they are.

No thanks, pay them more, not less, and do not allow them to take a lobbying or think tank job for a few years afterwards.

[valerief]

42. Yeah, and no benes unless they work for their constituents at least 40 hours a week. nt

[indepat]

43. And for lagniappe, with no health benefits, sick leave, or vacation

[Maedhros]

44. We justify paying wait staff less that minimum

because they get tips.

Since Congress works on commission from their corporate paymasters anyway, why should we pay them at all?

[DFW]

45. Here in Germany, some public officials (judges, e.g.) are given "anti-corruption" bonuses

We know a guy who sits on the tax court here and decides complicated intricate cases. These guys get a healthy take-home, but are expected to live within their (comfortable) means. If they are found to be on the take despite this, they are subject to some very unpleasant penalties, as well as being barred from further legal activity.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

46. That certainly sounds like a good approach.

[DFW]

47. Our neighbor, at least is fine with it

He lives comfortably without having an especially luxurious lifestyle. One car, nondescript, and a modest house. He is also a part-time law professor at a nearby university (expert on international taxation, and very much in demand for that). In the 30 years we have known him and his wife, they have never once either complained or shown off ostentatiously. I can't say it always works, and greed is always a powerful motivator, but if you have your head screwed on straight (and the both of them do), it should work as intended.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

48. That pesky 27th ammendment!

http://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2013/03/senators-want-cut-congressional-pay/61658/