grego Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 apparently, some of them dont think so. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/members-congress-paid-enough-165641960.html Everyone complains about their job now and then, and members of Congress are no exception. A few lawmakers have suggested in recent months that despite a $174,000 annual salary, generous health care and pensions, and perks for things like travel and mail, being one of the elite 435 ain't always what it's cracked up to be. And when you calculate the hours they put in, the pay isn't stellar either, they say. The Florida Capital News reported last week on a speech Steve Southerland, a Republican representative, gave to a retirement community in Tallahassee in which he complained about some of the parts of his new job: "He said his $174,000 salary is not so much, considering the hours a member of the House puts in, and that he had to sever ties with his family business in Panama City. Southerland also said there are no instant pensions or free health insurance, as some of his constituents often ask him about in Congress. "'And by the way, did I mention? They're shooting at us. There is law-enforcement security in this room right now, and why is that?" Southerland told about 125 people in an auditorium at the Westminster Oaks retirement community. "If you think this job pays too much, with those kinds of risks and cutting me off from my family business, I'll just tell you: This job don't mean that much to me. I had a good life in Panama City.' i'm a tad livid over these comment. what do you think? edit- dont know how to edit title to say "members" despite being here for 6 years or 7 or 8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinInsite Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Not nearly enough if you want to attract the best talents. I consider a senior congressman/senator to be at least a fortune 500 company CEO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pick6 Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Okay if this representative hates his job so much he should resign. Isn't this the same Congress who wants to cut spending everywhere else, but of course not when it effects their wallets. No they need more money to keep screwing the rest of the country over. ---------- Post added August-30th-2011 at 12:30 PM ---------- Not nearly enough if you want to attract the best talents.I consider a senior congressman/senator to be at least a fortune 500 company CEO. That is funny, because the ones currently working are not doing a very good job. So maybe if we increase their salary and peaks then we could get a better group in Congress and full of less bull****, but I doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renaissance Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 It's called making sacrifices. All public employees do it. And while everyone else in federal, state, and local government is being asked to accept pay freezes, cuts, and furloughs, and to endure hiring freezes and position reductions, I think it's pretty rediculous for a policy-maker to expect more money. Also, what kind of elected official says "This job don't mean that much to me" to his constituents?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 It's funny when you look at what they do vs. what some 30-year old IT analyst does. The 30-year old might make 120K, so that makes me think that maybe there's some validity to that. Then again, I don't know how to determine the total compensation when you factor in benefits, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 I think they should be paid more. First, it's a tremendously important job. Second, it would broaden the pool of candidates. Third, it would reduces the incentive for graft. Fourth, they need to maintain two homes, one in DC and one in their home district. Complaining about congressional salaries is one of the sillier things that populists do, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pick6 Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 It's funny when you look at what they do vs. what some 30-year old IT analyst does. The 30-year old might make 120K, so that makes me think that maybe there's some validity to that. Then again, I don't know how to determine the total compensation when you factor in benefits, etc. I can agree and disagree with you, but I think the big difference is it is a public office and they shouldn't be doing it for the money. Some of the benefits are pretty nice too. I know a good majority drive vehicles that they don't own and the leases are paid with taxpayer money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Also, what kind of elected official says "This job don't mean that much to me" to his constituents?? 1. An idiot; or 2. A guy who has calculated that his constituency likes the BS "dadgummit, I'm-a just as much a regular ol' truck drivin', dip-spittin' idle shmuck as any of all y'all, it's jessthat I'm a-servin' and a-sufferin' in that thar' Congress up thar in Fat Cat Waashuntiyin.DC" act. Of course, the two aren't mutually exclusive. But there's no reason why #2 has to mean #1 too. The guy could just be an intelligent dirtball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinInsite Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 That is funny, because the ones currently working are not doing a very good job. So maybe if we increase their salary and peaks then we could get a better group in Congress and full of less bull****, but I doubt it. Meh, the public could always vote out the people in Congress. The cost of getting in to running for public office far out weighs the rewards unless you are on some altruistic crusade. Most but not always the talents go where the money is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 I can agree and disagree with you, but I think the big difference is it is a public office and they shouldn't be doing it for the money. Some of the benefits are pretty nice too. I know a good majority drive vehicles that they don't own and the leases are paid with taxpayer money. Well right...that's the "total compensation" part of my argument that I can't quantify. Just generally speaking though...I think a Congressman is worth more than double or triple what I make. Currently, I'm being paid more than half of what they are. Also, I'm not saying that they should do it for the money, but that doesn't mean that the money shouldn't be there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenspandan Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Third, it would reduces the incentive for graft. so what you're saying is criminals are merely underpaid? i tend to think greed is rarely sated through indulgence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 so what you're saying is criminals are merely underpaid? i tend to think greed is rarely sated through indulgence. Some people (not all, but some) commit crime because of economic pressure. Congressmen are in charge of doling out billions and billions of dollars. To me, it is worth paying a few thousand dollars more to congressmen to reduce the incentive to play games with that money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpillian Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Some people (not all, but some) commit crime because of economic pressure. Congressmen are in charge of doling out billions and billions of dollars. To me, it is worth paying a few thousand dollars more to congressmen to reduce the incentive to play games with that money. Predicto, I think that's a good perspective I would not normally have considered. If you DON'T pay them well, and like you said earlier, they have to maintain two households, and effectively end whatever career they had prior -- the only way an "everyman" could do it is if they're making quite a bit more than $174K. I think the perspective I would normally come into this with is, they're all already wealthy (can't win a congressional election without considerable means), so why should the taxpayer pay them "exorbitant" salaries? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 I think the perspective I would normally come into this with is, they're all already wealthy (can't win a congressional election without considerable means), so why should the taxpayer pay them "exorbitant" salaries? I don't want my Congress to be staffed only with already-rich people who don't care about what salary they make. That is not a normal representation of the American public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenspandan Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 I don't want my Congress to be staffed only with already-rich people who don't care about what salary they make. i agree, but the salary is NOT what's stopping this from being the case! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 I would have no problem with increasing salaries and cutting pensions,perks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 If you want the best the problem has nothing to do with income. Steve Jobs isn't going to join congress because the pay is increased. What keeps the best leaders away is the scrutiny and the true rules of the game. The most creative problem solvers on the planet are going to join a system that requires them to be watched constantly for signs of "moral weakness". The most capable Americans can do amazingly well for themselves but in congress the party controls the purse strings. You do as you are told or they cut your funding and will likely attempt to ruin your good name. They could pay 1 million a year and you'd still wouldn't get the best. The best aren't going to sign up to be someone's ***** and at the end of the day congressmen beg and take orders more than they lead anyone anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 For the "work" they do....they are overpaid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 i agree, but the salary is NOT what's stopping this from being the case! Steve Southerland would disagree with you, and I think he makes a good point. The job is designed for rich people, or at least people who do not have the need to maintain families at an upper middle class level in two separate homes And in the big picture, paying 435 Congressmen a little more money makes zero difference in the deficit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenspandan Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 And in the big picture, paying 435 Congressmen a little more money makes zero difference in the deficit. doubtless. however, i question whether raising the salary would cause significantly fewer seats to be held by the wealthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 If you want the best the problem has nothing to do with income. Steve Jobs isn't going to join congress because the pay is increased. Stever Jobs doesn't care about the money. But upper middle class people do. Many could not afford to be a Congressman. If you want to have a lot more Rod Blagojevich's in office, trying to sell appointments and judgeships - just keep salaries low. That's what you'll get. Millionaires and Blagos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renaissance Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 So if you're making the 2 homes argument, does the Senator from California get paid more than the Senator from North Dakota? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 however, i question whether raising the salary would cause significantly fewer seats to be held by the wealthy. In order to fix that you have to fix how campaigns are funded...that's why the poor and middle class don't sit in those seats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 doubtless.however, i question whether raising the salary would cause significantly fewer seats to be held by the wealthy. It would remove one barrier from middle class representation. There certainly are other barriers that would remain, campaign finance being the biggest one. ---------- Post added August-30th-2011 at 10:36 AM ---------- So if you're making the 2 homes argument, does the Senator from California get paid more than the Senator from North Dakota? Nope. But they both pay McLean/Chevy Chase costs when they get to DC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Some people (not all, but some) commit crime because of economic pressure. Congressmen are in charge of doling out billions and billions of dollars. To me, it is worth paying a few thousand dollars more to congressmen to reduce the incentive to play games with that money. I don't think it would matter. You could pay them all five million a year, and being that close to that river of flowing money is going to make them want to dip into it. The inherent corruptability of man isn't assuaged by money. Some of the worst swindlers there are make millions in salary. If the guy doesn't think 175k is enough, he should quit his job. Simple as that. Find a better one. i'd love to hear this clown's position on budget cuts, but I bet I know what it is already. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.