Should Congressional and Presidential Salaries be abolished?

[KingFlorez]

I don't think they should be paid, it's a waste of taxpayer money. For members of Congress who might need the salary for travel, it should be replaced with a reasonable allowance.

[spindrifter]

1. Some of the people collecting them should

be pink-slipped.

[MisoWeaver]

2. And have them live only on graft?

That would be in-human!

[meegbear]

3. I think they should get minimum wage ...

and watch it go up for the people who try to live on it.

[sweetheart]

41. all elected public servants should be likewise

[Nozebro]

4. Can't you come up with anything better than this silliness? EOM

nt

[KingFlorez]

11. It's not silly

158,000 dollars a year is excessive, that's more than is needed to live on.

[sallyseven]

29. Why is it excessive?

They maintain two homes. Work for the people who elected them and at least the democrats are responsive to the voters. Reducing the pay or abolishing it is just nonsense and stupid. Then they will all have to be bought by the corporations and then we are in worse trouble. Use common sense and not some fly by night idea.

[Bretttido]

5. Umm... assuming they played by the rules and didn't take bribes

what the heck would they live on? Or would a prerequisite to becoming a politician be that you have enough money to live off of for many years?

[Swamp Rat]

6. No. n/t

[onenote]

7. out of curiousity: do you have a job and are you paid?

[pnb]

8. No way

That would serve only either of two purposes...make sure only extremely wealthy people could afford to serve and/or increase the potential for corruption in a major way.

[Options Remain]

10. tie their salaries into a domestic economic health index

which essentially grades them on their results.

[Nutmegger]

9. Sad thing is that most of our "servants" are millionaires already.

Look at the Senate....

[nam78_two]

12. maybe

baseline pay (maybe 50,000?) with bonuses depending on performance and performance determined by the constituents? :shrug:


Dunno how that would be implemented...or ...ok I have no idea what I am talking about, but it seems to make some dim sense to me :shrug:-just an additional layer of democracy, incentives to be honest etc.?

[Child_Of_Isis]

13. Nooooooooo........

We have to pay our royalty.

Plus if you get po' folk in there, they'll just steal us blind.

[SammyWinstonJack]

42. They already do that, steal us blind that is, and a lot of them are

millionaires.

[Perky]

14. Some are not millionaires.. Housing is another issue

DC is very expensive.


Personally. I think there is some merit to the notion that the State Governemnts ought to build housing for their Delegations.
Nothing ostentatious, but servicable and appropriate. 535 nice townhomes would be a boon for Capitol Hill and help revitalize that part of the city which could use it.
Would create a nice engine for better publish schools, a decent shopping center, etc.

[bryant69]

15. We should make them even more dependent on lobbyists?

We should make it even harder for middle class and working class people to consider public office? Isn't it hard enough for them already?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Dob Bole]

16. I think there should be a salary cap for all govt. employees...

If all govt. salaries were capped at, say $100,000 a year, then how many bijillions would our country save each year? I think it's a good idea...of course, I like the idea of making them earn minimum wage too.

[Perky]

18. Yo Dob Hold on a cotton pickin minute!!!

I live in DC. (100k would notbuy most people adequate housing. You would not be able to recruit the best and brightest to government service at that amount of pay. It's a nice populist sentiment. but it just would never work.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

17. I can't even begin to tell you how ridiculous that thought is.

But here are two big reasons:

1) That would officially eliminate any candidate that isn't already independently wealthy. I know, a lot of them are already, but do you really want there to be ZERO ability for a regular guy to take office?

2) They do a LOT of fucking work. Far, far, FAR more than you or I (unless maybe you're an ER doctor). You have no idea how much work these guys actually do. They should probably be paid MORE, not less.

[truebrit71]

27. ...and alot of them don't....

..they work for us, so they should make as much as us...

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

30. A lot of them don't what?

Work hard?

If that's what you think, just spend a few days walking around the hallways of the Congressional Office Buildings. You'll change your mind really quickly.

And no, one should be compensated for what they do, not based on whom they work for. That is only fair. How hypocritical it would be of us to argue for fair wages when we do not offer fair wages ourselves.

[truebrit71]

31. Yeah, look at all of that time off they don't have....Puhleez....

...they should be compensated at the same rate as the average of those they are SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT....

Fair wages? Who said anything about fair wages? Theses congress-critters feed at OUR TROUGH DAILY, is it too much to make them understand what it's like to live paycheck-to-paycheck?

Oh, and no-one is forcing them to become congress-critters, if they want to get rich they should stay in the private sector and leave governing to those that WANT TO DO IT.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

34. You truly have no clue whatsoever what it is Congressmen do.

That "time off" isn't time off at all - it's time spent in their districts. And believe it or not, they do a LOT more than vote on laws. In fact, I'd say that's not even half of what they do.

But, you know what, you seem content to not have any clue, so I'll just leave it at that.

[clydefrand]

19. How about if they are only paid for the

DAYS WORKED (ie, on the floor of congress). Do as many, if not all, states do, and have a very limited congressional term each year. They aren't doing much anyway.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

35. They already are.

With exception to the vacation time they take, usually 4-5 weeks per year. The time they don't spend in Washington, they spend it in their districts, tending to the needs of their constituents. What they do in Washington isn't even half of their jobs.

[misternormal]

20. I say pay them and pay them well...

... Just don't let them make a career out of being a politicain...

The argument that senators and representatives need to stay in the legislative branch as long as they can, or until they retire is a double edged sword...

Sure they learn the system, and make alliances to get their particular legislation passed, but in those alliances there are some very "shady" deals going on that could only be made by those that have known and watched each other's backs for a long time.

[Greyhound]

21. Not abolished, but reduced to the median income for their state.

In addition, I think any raises in salary or benefits should be voted on in a general election.

[Sammy Pepys]

22. The Consitution mandates that they be paid...

...good luck getting that amended.

[Radical Activist]

23. Should everyone in Congress be rich?

No.

[MissMarple]

24. Not just no, but hell no.

Bad idea, bad, bad idea.

[Davis_X_Machina]

25. Salary should be fixed by law...

....at that paid to a MLB second-string shortstop or NBA tenth man, whichever is higher.

[truebrit71]

26. They should only make the average wage of the state they come from....

..and not a DIME more....Want to make more money as a congress-critter or pretzeldent? Simple, raise the wages in your home state...

[ThomWV]

28. Pay Them A Million Then Don't Let Them Take Anything From Anyone

Pay them a million a year, give them great office budgets, free travel all the time everywhere. Then arrest them and put them in jail if they take so much as a red cent from anyone for any reason.

[Child_Of_Isis]

32. Their million dollar lawyers would just get them out of it. eom

[focusfan]

33. what makes Congress or the Prez better than us

they don't do nothing they just sit on there butts and make up
laws that Bush breaks so what good are they. why is it people
in america struggle to pay bills and buy grocerys and have
health care while people in congress and the ignorant prez
have it easy.:mad: 

[warrens]

36. How exactly will most of them EAT?

Much less run two households, save for their kids' educations, etc. Most of these people are not rich. Of course a lot enrich themselves eventually, but a large majority are just middle-class people who need an income. I'm speaking of the Dem party here; there seem to be a lot of very wealthy people on the other side, at least in the House.

[Zynx]

37. Let's put it this way, after hundreds of years of unpaid representatives

the British parliament actually got a lot more lower class representatives after they put in place paid MPs. Someone who is not already wealthy cannot afford to sit in Congress and live in DC. It also cuts down on bribery.

[cobalt1999]

38. Here's what I would do.

Pay them well. However, any federal deficit would come first out of the president's and congresses salary and pension programs, then we would issue bonds. They need a little financial incentive to stop spending. They might actually think twice before launching a multi-billion dollar war, if it means losing some personal money.

[Yupster]

39. No but their retirement plans should be

It shouldn't be a career.

Successful people should go to Washington to represent their neighbors for a brief time. Then they should come back and be a regular person again and another neighbor should represent them.

[SammyWinstonJack]

40. I think they should have to pay for their own health care insurance.

If they had too do that, they might consider some sort of national health care plan for the rest of us peons.