Why can't Congress and the White House be paid based on what the median income is?

[ck4829]

It seems like a good idea, that would make them more representative of the People, and it would also give them an incentive to help increase everyone's incomes.

[no limit]

1. You think they care about the money they make off their congress job?

Most of them are so rich already this is nothing but pocket change.

[zorahopkins]

5. Most of Them GET Rich

"Most of them are so rich already this is nothing but pocket change."

Most members of Congress are not rich people *hen they are first elected to Congress.

But they certainly become rich *hile "serving" in Congress.

Note: In protest of the fact that Bush/Cheney continue to occupy the *hite House, I am not using the letter bet*een "V" and "X".

[Oregone]

2. Their "pay" should actually be a cost of living subsidy...

ONLY to be paid out IF they do not have an income above a certain level ($100 K or so). In otherwords, the rich should "serve" their country for free. We should also require all active members to shuffle their private investments into blind trusts while "serving".

[pnwmom]

3. Because we don't want to lose the most qualified candidates

to other, far more well paying positions.

As it is, the typical University president makes much more than the President of the United States.

[Donnachaidh]

4. Does their actual pay factor in the leased vehicles and the gas for them?

I personally think they should be paid for performance. Start them out with minimum wage and no perks. And if they bring jobs and prosperity to the country, put it to a national vote to give them a minimal raise.

[Mnemosyne]

6. I always have wanted them to live on minimum for 6 months before

an election to qualify to run at all or maybe for six months after being elected.

I like your idea even better. Performance pay is good enough for our schools and teachers. Why are our 'employees' held to less?