FYI: Congressional Salaries

[hyphenate]

This is public knowledge, and I'm not quite sure if the salaries are the same now, but it's still a lot of money, no matter how you choose to look at it. Notice how Senators and Representatives are paid the exact same pay.


Position Salary
President:
1789 $25,000
1873 50,000
1909 75,000
1949 100,0001
1969 200,0001
2001 400,0001


Vice President $208,1002
Senator 162,100
Representative 162,100
Majority and Minority Leaders 180,100
Speaker of the House 208,100
Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court 208,100
Assoc. Justice, U.S. Supreme Court 199,200

President also gets: Plus $50,000 non-taxable expense allowance to assist in defraying expenses relating to or resulting from the discharge of his official duties.
Vice-president also gets: Plus $10,000 taxable expense allowance.
Source: Office of Personnel Management. Web: www.opm.gov/ .


Read more: Salaries of the President, Vice President, and Other U.S. Officials — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0875856.html#ixzz1GuugT6pv

[Rage for Order]

1. Don't forget the FULL pension after just one term of service

Nothing but the best for our hard-working government officials!

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. False

http://www.snopes.com/politics/socialsecurity/pensions.asp

[Rage for Order]

13. Right you are

I should have said "fully vested" rather than full pension. Senators and Congressmen can draw a pension after just one term, but it won't be as much as someone who served 5 terms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_pension#Pension_amount

The pension amount is determined by a formula that takes into account the years served and the average pay for the top three years in terms of payment. In 2002, the average pension payment ranged from $41,000 to $55,000. For example, a member of Congress who worked for 22 years and had a top three-year average salary of $153,900 would be eligible for a pension payment of $84,645 per year

Of course, there's also this:

In 2003, after James Traficant was expelled from Congress, several Congressmen tried passing a bill that would prevent expelled members from receiving their pensions. The bill was stalled and eventually dropped after being sent to the House Administration and Reforms committee for review

[Scruffy1]

89. Wiki has this wrong. It would really be about $35,000.00

I think they used the CSRS number. This was changed in 1984 to FERS. That is 1% per year times high 3. There are a few on CSRS but most are on FERS. The good deal on FERS is that the Feds matches the first 5% of the 401k so it is worth a lot more than the pension.

[valerief]

8. I'm sure they'll sacrifice it for the sake of the deficit.

Bwahahahahaha!

[TheWraith]

2. It's now $175k for a member of the House. nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

3. Are you suggesting they work for free?

The banksters make lots more than this. And don't work as hard to deserve it either.

[hyphenate]

5. No, I am not saying any such thing.

What I guess I'm trying to say is two-fold. One, with those kinds of salaries, they usually can't be empathic to poor people, as their salaries put them in the a higher income bracket; and two, it's easy to see why so many try to wend their way into public office.

Pay is one thing, and it's right here, visible. But one of the most important parts of being a congress person is the power wielded. Many congress people get addicted to the power they have, and try to keep it, regardless of what they do to keep it. So, it's not a matter of "serving the country," it's a matter of getting good money to be a hack (for the most part) and power to go anywhere and do anything they want.

If you are just toeing the party line, you don't deserve such a salary or amount of power as you are getting. Parroting others is mindless and wasteful--I'd love to get a job as a congress person if that was all my job entailed.

[SDuderstadt]

6. How many occupations require that you maintain...

two households?

[hyphenate]

9. Look at it another way:

I exist and have to deal with a Social Security Disability check every month. It's not even $16,000 a year. I don't have any other money coming in at all. So if I can exist with such a puny sum, I think many people can maintain two households with that kind of salary. They don't have to be paupers, but they should be able to do nicely on what they DO get for salaries, without having to get illegal gifts from corporations or rich people.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. 1. You aren't commuting to DC to work

2. You aren't maintaining a household in DC, a very expensive place to live AND another residence, plus two offices.

3. You don't have the responsibility that Congress members have.

[hyphenate]

19. You are right

I don't have that kind of responsibility. And I wouldn't want it, either. But there are things which could be changed in the rules and laws of congress, to make sure the people who serve live within their means, or that they should use their own money if the salary is not paying enough.

Going out of the country to visit a troubled nation? How about using frequent flyer miles, or staying at a nice, but not 1st class hotel?

Have the government build an apartment complex for those congress people who are living in D.C. Don't laugh--it's already being done with the notorious "Family" house on C Street (Jeff Shalet--could be Sharlat), where many of the senatorss and reps live when they're in D.C.

Doing fundraising for an attempt at high office should not entail ANY public funds--the congress person should pay everything out of his/her own pockets.

If a congress person has been investigated and has been convicted of accepting bribes, there shouldn't be any kind of reprieve for them--they should be sentenced like the rest of us, not keep their jobs without any action taken. And this should apply to ALL congress people, whether they are R or D.

Personally, I find it's always the rich ones who win, because they're the only ones who can raise enough money to do campaigns. Finding that the job carries virtual no additional perks might help keep some of the most likely gross offenders out of running for an office, and encourage some who want to devote some time to public office for a few years.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jtown1123]

52. Thanks! I never understand why pple get their panties in a bunch over these salaries

they seem pretty freaking fair considering they work 80 hours and week and live in a ridiculously expensive city. Plus, most fly home every single weekend.

[xphile]

58. A lot of places are expensive to live and we have to make due on a lot less

So what? They knew it was part of the job and it doesn't excuse them for living rather high on the hog on our tax dollars while demonizing teachers, firefighters and other public workers for make a hell of a lot less and are looking at having their salaries cut further.

[SDuderstadt]

59. Can you point to any...

Democratic members of congress who are "demonizing" public employes?

Your generic anti-Congress rant would be more at home on FreeRepublic.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Rage for Order]

15. I think $72,000 should do it

Give them $6,000 a month, and give them a free dorm in DC with a free cafeteria for when they have to be in DC for business. That way they can't say they need a large salary to be able to maintain 2 households - one in DC and one in their district.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[proud2BlibKansan]

18. +1

[Doremus]

104. Well, that's gotta be embarrassing.

Agreeing with someone who was subsequently tombstoned, I mean. I didn't see the post but your response is still sitting there giving a "+1" to "Name Removed" and "Message removed by moderator."

Ooopsie! :blush:

[SDuderstadt]

105. How do you know...

they were "tombstoned" as opposed to merely having their post removed?

[Doremus]

106. Check their profile. nt

[SDuderstadt]

108. Actually, the deleted post is....

mine.

I'm pretty sure that I am still here. For whatever it's worth, I think when a post is deleted, both the post and the name are removed and it defaults to a placeholder, but does not tell you the status of the actual poster.

[Doremus]

109. Thanks for sharing that info.

Good to see that reports of your demise are greatly exaggerated. ;)

[SDuderstadt]

110. People are reporting I got...

TSed?

[Doremus]

112. Nah, I was just kidding. Sorry. nt

[Control-Z]

30. I agree.

The only salaries that seem like a lot to me are the president's and the speaker's, but even theirs aren't that high when you consider what they do. Other than the fact that Boner, and all republicans for that matter, should be paying us, I have no problem with the amounts.

It is bankers, CEOs, and athletes who are so obscenely overpaid. I resent the hell of them.

[jwirr]

7. This needs to be done for governors and state legislators also state

by state.

[midnight]

12. Why are these public workers allowed to make so much but

nurses and teachers are making to much....

[Rex]

14. It is a good thing they are politicians and not civil servants.

They would probably get their pension cut, have a higher premium on their health care this year along with the boss wanting them to work 60 hours a week but 'not get too much overtime'.

Good thing huh? :eyes:

[SDuderstadt]

16. Do you honestly think members of congress...

only work 60 hours per week? I haven't known one that works less than 70-80.

[Rex]

21. So you don't really know any?

Thanks.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Foo Fighter]

27. So a 60-hour week consists of flying in on Tuesday and flying out on Friday?

Because that's what a lot of them do. That's a three-day work week at somewhere around $170k a year.

Pretty damn good gig with excellent benefits that a lot of Americans can only dream of.

Not to mention that a lot of their time is spent "fund-raising." After all, why bother serving the American people when they can get much more money by catering to the rich.

As always, follow the money.

[SDuderstadt]

28. Dude...

serious question:

How do members of Congress meet with constituents when they are in D.C.? Do you have any idea why members of Congress maintain offices in their districts? Do you have any idea why Senators maintain multiple offices statewide?

Your ignorance of the way Congress actually works is stunning.

[jtown1123]

54. Thanks. I want to Rec all your comments.

[Rex]

29. They do it to serve people and not for the money.

HA! Gotcha!

[jtown1123]

53. $175,000 is not much considering most work until 10 every night and fly home every single weekend

[slay]

23. It's once they get out is where the big money is - they go on to be lobbyists, lecturers, etc

once you've got that power - one of the elite few - you're golden - as long as you are willing to sell your soul to the highest bidder. and most are. the $$$ will just come pouring in for those people.

[SDuderstadt]

24. Many of the posts in this OP can be summarized as follows:

"We can improve the effectiveness of Congress by trying to pay them the least we can.".

As I said previously, a monumentally stupid idea.

[Rex]

25. Best idea, besides term limits I ever heard.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rucky]

95. I say we pay them a decent salary...

and make sure it's their only source of income while they're serving.

[SDuderstadt]

96. No investments? n/t

[rucky]

97. read this...

http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20110216/NEWS01/102160340/-1/rss

[SDuderstadt]

98. I didn't say it should be without...

ethical regulation.

[Obamanaut]

31. There are also the 'perqs', such as an allowance for office/staff expense,

franking privilege, and others:

http://www.thecapitol.net/FAQ/payandperqs.htm

It all adds up to a hefty chunk of change.

[SDuderstadt]

32. Which are all...

pass-throughs.

[Obamanaut]

33. Call it what you will - each one of these perqs adds to the cost of keeping

a member of congress.

salary + perqs = total cost per employee (congress member)

[SDuderstadt]

34. Which isn't the point...

the point is how much we pay them and how much they are worth. Unless you are claiming that members of congress are allowed to keep any portion of their staff alllowance for themselves, your "argument" isn't really going anywhere.

Re-read the subject line of the OP.

[Rex]

35. Completely wrong.

That is the point.

[SDuderstadt]

36. Dude...

you might want to stick to one argument at a time.

You're not doing very well with the first one.

[Rex]

37. The one you called stupid?

I have to say you are entertaining, but totally disappointing. :rofl:

And of course completely wrong.

[SDuderstadt]

38. Dude...

if your claim isn't stupid, you'd be able to support it.

Tell us how we can improve the effectiveness of Congress by paying them the least we can. We're all ears.

Or, you could aimply admit that you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Rex]

40. Funny how that wasn't anything I said. No where did I post we

need to reduce their pay...you are trying childish methods of distraction from MY posts point about your post. I understand your simple confusion. I said they don't work 70 to 80 hours a week and you could show no proof or verify anything you claimed to be true about yourself or any knowledge you have in your brain.

That is okay, I understand completely.

EDIT - no answer to this one huh? I SHOULD play the 'run off' card you used earlier, but am feeling sorry for you now so in all further communications I will refer you to post #80 and when you can address such issues, maybe can discuss them with a grown up.

[SDuderstadt]

41. Dude...

Read my post # 27, then read your post #28.

It's pretty stupid to claim you were only talking about how many hours a week they work.

[Rex]

42. It is also stupid to claim said things 'are stupid' and keep posting about

it. But I see that is your certain condition so will end ever to provide you with further need. You probably love imaginary numbers.

[SDuderstadt]

44. Could you try repeating your post...

coherently?

[Rex]

45. Refer to post #80.

You are amazing. :rofl:

[Obamanaut]

39. Dude. The point is the total cost of keeping a congress person. If

one wants to consider only the base 'salary', that's ok, but it is not the total picture.

If you (yes, you) hire an employee for X dollars in salary, that is not the total cost to you for that employee. If you (yes, you) count only the salary paid to that employee, your books are going to be screwed up at the end of the year.

But, with congress members, the keepers of the books merely grab a handful of cash from the taxpayer to make up the difference. We the taxpayers see $174,000 salary and say to one another "That's a lot of money." If the total cost per congress member were to be put on the same page we would probably say "Now, THAT'S a whole lot of money." Maybe that's why they don't put it on the same page.

total cost = fixed costs + variable costs

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[thelordofhell]

46. In this day and age, Senators and Reps don't even need to be in D.C.

Why can't we set up a virtual capital? So that way our reps can stay in their districts instead of going to D.C. and out of touch with their own constituents.

:shrug:

[SDuderstadt]

47. Just when you think this thread could not POSSIBLY...

get any dumber, someone always comes along and proves you wrong.

[Rex]

48. So you were wrong?

But just about this one thing. Gotcha.

[SDuderstadt]

49. Dude...

your mischaracterization of what I have said is evidence of your desperation to win at all costs.

I'm done.

P.S. A failed prediction is not a false statement of fact, dude.

[Rex]

50. ROFL!

Is that what you said? You're done? Ha. I even doubt that is true.

[thelordofhell]

51. Your post

"How do members of Congress meet with constituents when they are in D.C.? Do you have any idea why members of Congress maintain offices in their districts? Do you have any idea why Senators maintain multiple offices statewide?"

My suggestion is to get members of Congress out of D.C. and keep them in their districts that they represent, that way the public (constituents) have better access to them. We already have corporations that video conference every day. Distance learning via virtual colleges are growing every year. The next logical step would be to apply this on a grander scale so that Congress members would not have to go to D.C. to do the job of introducing/debating/passing legislation. Sorry if that sounds stupid to you.

[SDuderstadt]

55. Dude...

your post demonstrates that you don't have the slightest idea how Congress actually works. Do you understand how the whips line up and confirm votes? Have you ever watched a floor vote and noticed how members mill around and confer with each other? Could you explain how that would happen easily if they were teleconferencing?

The reason it sounds good to you is that you simply don't know what you're talking about.

[thelordofhell]

68. I know exactly how Congress works

But because you can't see how it could work differently to the benefit of representing constituency instead of political party makes me not know what I'm talking about? Does suggesting other ways for the process to work make it stupid? You've got to stop looking at how things are and instead see how things can be. My suggestion is just that, a suggestion. Now please stop with your childish backhanded insults, it does you no favors.......dude.

[Rex]

69. All this over people that write into law how much they are going to get

paid!

http://salon.glenrose.net/default.asp?view=plink&id=11655

Incredulity robs us of many pleasures, and gives us nothing in return.

[thelordofhell]

77. That's definately the biggest problem with Congress

But then again, put most people in control of how much they get paid and this will happen.

[SDuderstadt]

78. Take it up with...

the Framers.

Simple question:

Which branch do you think should determine compensation?

[thelordofhell]

85. The problem is with the "automatic" raises

Congress should have to introduce, debate, and vote on it every time they want a raise.

[Rex]

90. And there should be term limits and a cap on salaries.

They do debate it - 'I do'. See? Debate over. Lazy bastards should try a real job like mowing lawns for a living or flipping burgers all day long. At least they are not like Mr. Do Nothing - GWB. But not much more than that. We need people that actually care about the citizens and not their perks and paychecks.

Oh well we can dream...come join the 'help group'! It makes it funnier that way. :rofl:

[thelordofhell]

91. Term limits should be the electorate

If a person wants to be a career politician, so be it. But they have to be elected. Term limits abdicate the responsibility of the people to pay attention to politics.

[SDuderstadt]

92. It hasn't changed in 3-4 years n/t

[SDuderstadt]

71. Dude...

most "redesign" begins with determining what the needs are. You've missed that step in favor of what you believe is a superior solution.

How would your "virtual capital" work when Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer and James Clyburn are trying to marshal votes to thwart a GOP amendment? How would debates be conducted? How would a member rise to a point of order? How would a member ask another member to yield some of their time? How would the Speaker or the presiding officer keep the session flowing?

Again, you seem to understand little of how Congress works or interpersonal dynamics. Maybe you should read a book about Lyndon Johnson's time as Senate Majority Leader.

[thelordofhell]

79. I'm done with you after this

You can conference with individual members the same way you can group conference with the whole body. As you can see by these posts, you can also debate. Parliamentary procedures can work on-line as well.

Once again, you can't seem to make any points without insulting people. Maybe you really need to learn some civility and manners. Ciao "dude".

[SDuderstadt]

84. Dude...

Do you understand anything at all about personal interaction?

[thelordofhell]

87. So you can't personally interact on-line?

grow up

[SDuderstadt]

93. Dude...

think this through. Would Congress be more or less open under your suggestion? How would C-Span cover Congress: How would abuse of the quorum requirement be avoided? How would anyone ensure that only members of Congress vote? What about a roll call or arcane procedures? How would members develop coalitions? How would members work on other members to get their votes? What about the State of the Union Address? How about when school classes visit the Capitol to learn how our government works? How would an impeachment trail be held?

What about the constitutional requirement that Congress assemble "at least once per year"? Would a teleconference meet that requirement?

Dude...it's a stupid idea. YOU grow up.

[thelordofhell]

101. It's all possible

and they can assemble together once a year......grow up

[SDuderstadt]

102. Dude...

"grow up" is not an argument. Neither is you just brushing off the serious concerns I have listed. Why can't you address them? Hint: because your "idea" makes little sense, as is the case with almost all oversimplified approaches to complex issues.

I am willing to bet you couldn't find a single expert on Congress who would endorse your goofy suggestion.

[jtown1123]

57. No. They need a centralized location to interact w/other party members

meet with world experts on the environment, economy, etc. What do you think a representative like Gabby Giffords was doing at that Safeway? Most members fly home every single weekend. There are also schedule constituent weeks where members are in their districts for a week or two at a time. It doesn't make sense for them to all be all over the place. They all have district offices that help them keep in touch with their constituents. I think the way the system works now is pretty good. Of course, there is always room for improvement.

[thelordofhell]

70. It would also make lobbying more of a pain

That would be a huge plus. But then again, seeing how people like SDuderstadt treat others on-line, maybe it's not a good idea to let Congress go on the internet.

[Rex]

73. Not at all...they would just direct deposit payments

which they probably already do by now and comes with the release notes. :rofl:

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[thelordofhell]

75. No, they are being constructive to the conversation

You, however, are a loutish boor with no class. Your act got old 15 posts ago. Grow up.

[SDuderstadt]

76. Your "idea" still makes...

little sense.

Is that "loutish" enough for you?

[thelordofhell]

80. Grow up

[SDuderstadt]

83. I see that...

you cannot defend your "idea".

[thelordofhell]

86. I did........Grow up

[SDuderstadt]

94. LOL!

"Grow up" = "I really have no argument"

[thelordofhell]

100. No......It means you should grow up

[SDuderstadt]

103. Dude...

I guess we can add "debate" to the list of things you don't understand.

[karynnj]

56. I agree that if the rules would change, the votes could be done remotely,

but the majority of a legislator's time is spent in hearings, preparing for hearings, and meeting with other legislators to get them to join their legislation. Now, I assume that teleconferencing could do some of this, but I think that much will be lost.

[Ignis]

61. Good luck. This subject went so well last time.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x540691

[Rex]

62. Wow, that reveals a lot thanks.

No wonder we cannot have an honest discussion about it, too many disruptors.

[SDuderstadt]

63. Rex "logic"

vigorous debate is disruption.

[Ignis]

64. That's the damn truth.

But don't let that stop you from trying. :patriot:

[Rex]

65. Thank you thank you.

I cannot thank you enough for that link. :hi:

[Rex]

67. I hope people understand sarcasm.

And my need to NOT post the dam emoticons everytime I post.

[SDuderstadt]

66. Oh, bullshit...

people disagreeing vigorously with you is not disruption.

[Modern_Matthew]

72. Their salary should change with the median income of the U.S. nt

[walldude]

81. They don't seem like much.. right up until they start complaining

about teachers and public employees living high on the hog on 50 grand a year.

I vote that any Politician that complains about how much someone else is making has to take their salary for 2 years and see what it's like.

[xphile]

82. That to me is a huge problem.

They make twice, three times what teachers and other public employees make but they complain about how little they (the congressman and other politicians of their ilk) make? Ridiculous! One cannot complain about others living high on the hog while making three times what they make while doing "work" that's a lot less strenuous with a hell of a lot more perks.

My only quibble with your suggestion is that the politician has to take the salary of the person they are complaining about IF the salary is less than their own. (Gotta knock out that loophole since we wouldn't want them to complain about the CEO salaries merely to grab it for themselves for a couple of years.)

[SDuderstadt]

99. Of course...

you left out the part about members of Congress having to maintain two households.

[xphile]

107. Part of the job. Don't like it. Too fucking bad. No one forced them to run for office.

Unlike other professions people don't take jobs as congressmen because they really needed the money and they needed to take some job until something better comes along.

I should rephrase. Unlike other professions people don't use the rather high paying job of member of congress as a job they take to make ends meet because the job market is shitty. It is unfortunately too often a stepping stone to the higher paying job of corporate whore (also known as lobbyist)

At over three times the median salary having to maintain two households isn't an excuse to complain about how "underpaid" the poor poor congresscritter is.

[SDuderstadt]

111. I don't recall saying...

that they are underpaid.

[Bleacher Creature]

113. Not worth your time.

I worked on the Hill for a few years a while ago and the only topic more tedious than this one is a topic about term limits. Running country as large and complex as ours takes people who are bright, competent and experienced. I swear, some people won't be satisfied until we completely eliminate all incentives for people willing to devote all or a large part of their lives to public service.

[SDuderstadt]

114. Isn't it amazing...

how people believe we can improve effectiveness by dramatically slashing congressional compensation or creating a "virtual capitol"?

The only thing I've heard that's dumber is abolishing the Senate. No kidding, an OP advocated that.

[FreeJoe]

88. Wow

They should be paid considerably more than that. I don't know of any corporate officers of any substantial sized organization that pay so little. Throw in the extra cost of maintaining two households and it is even worse. We should pay our reps more.