Quote :

"A crumbling economy, more than 2 million constituents who have lost their jobs this year, and congressional demands of CEOs to work for free did not convince lawmakers to freeze their own pay. Instead, they will get a $4,700 pay increase, amounting to an additional $2.5 million that taxpayers will spend on congressional salaries, and watchdog groups are not happy about it. “As lawmakers make a big show of forcing auto executives to accept just $1 a year in salary, they are quietly raiding the vault for their own personal gain,” said Daniel O’Connell, chairman of The Senior Citizens League (TSCL), a non-partisan group. “This money would be much better spent helping the millions of seniors who are living below the poverty line and struggling to keep their heat on this winter.” “Look at the way the economy is and how most people aren’t counting on a holiday bonus or a pay raise — they’re just happy to have gainful employment,” said Ellis. “But you have the lawmakers who are set up and ready to get their next installment of a pay raise and go happily along their way.” “They don’t even go through the front door. They have it set up so that it’s wired so that you actually have to undo the pay raise rather than vote for a pay raise,” Ellis said."

11% Approval rating and a sputtering economy... yeah let's give them a raise.


http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/with-economy-in-shambles-congress-gets-a-raise-2008-12-17.html

12/19/2008 11:05:30 AM

once again I would like to propose that we pay congress critters the same pay that elisted men get.

12/19/2008 11:16:05 AM

I would have very little problem with this if it weren't for all the very recent talk about high CEO salaries, and wasteful spending by the bailed out companies. But i guess it is OK, because the federal Govt will never run short of money right? They can just steal more from us to pay congress, or hell, just make more!

12/19/2008 11:26:55 AM

Did you read your own article?

Its an automatic pay raise, one that was already in place.

They should have voted to freeze their pay, but at this point making a huff out of it is silly.

12/19/2008 12:01:17 PM

And CEO salaries, raises and bonuses are usually automatic and already in place too, that doesn't mean that it's not stupid for congress to demand CEOs cut their salaries and not do the same for themselves. Further, why is making a big deal about this now silly? Because it already passed? Seems like a perfect time to make a fuss, while its fresh in people's heads and hopefully get it changed, frozen or reduced for the future.

12/19/2008 7:02:32 PM

If I had an approval rating of 11% at my job, I'd get fired. That's all I'm sayin'.

12/19/2008 7:27:02 PM

and any INDIVIDUAL REPRESENTATIVE with an 11% approval rating probably lost (except that facist chick in minneapolis)

unfortunately the average rep has a 75-95% approval rate in their home state/district

12/19/2008 7:34:14 PM

^^ (and everyone above woodfoot)

RAWR RAWR RAWR

KING DOUCHEBAG HERE

IM A REACTIONARY MESSAGE BOARD POSTER

RAWR RAWR RAWR

[Edited on December 19, 2008 at 7:49 PM. Reason : .]

12/19/2008 7:49:37 PM

Quote :

"11% Approval rating"

I'm not defending Congress in any way, but I really do wonder what would make their rating go up. Perhaps if they passed a bill requiring men in santa suits to hand out gummi bears to children on every street corner?

If it hasn't become very obvious yet, especially from the last few elections -- Americans' priorities are very screwed up.

For example:

Quote :

"I would like to propose that we pay congress critters the same pay that elisted men get"

Here's a better idea. Let's pay enlisted men what the congress critters get.

Personally I don't have a problem with the congressional salaries; do we really want the people who make our laws to be poor? Seriously?

12/19/2008 7:58:31 PM

Quote :

"Personally I don't have a problem with the congressional salaries; do we really want the people who make our laws to be poor? Seriously?"

Why not, making them rich certainly hasn't curtailed the corruption, bribery gifts, lobbyist influence and political pandering without benefit to america as a whole. At least if they were poor, we wouldn't be paying them so much to fuck our country up.

Besides, if its good enough for the men and women who defend our country, why isn't it good enough for the men and women who fuck it up?

12/19/2008 8:56:59 PM

lol



let's gain a little perspective here

http://www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/

[Edited on December 19, 2008 at 9:08 PM. Reason : see how long it takes you to FIND the congressional compensation items on the poster]

12/19/2008 9:03:08 PM

^^

You're a perfectly smart guy, I am sure you can read your own post and see how completely problematic it is. Here are some pointers:

* Reasonable pay is a necessary but not sufficient condition for quality of work. I am sure you know the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions. Please put your college education from our fine alma mater to good use.

* Who says that the pay for our enlisted men is good enough?

* Not all Congressmen screw up our country; in fact some quite consistently defend its values as best they can.

* Congressmen, even the good and non-corrupt ones, have a necessarily high cost of living.

... come on, please think before replying. You sound like a friggin UAW guy calling into a radio show, for God's sakes.

[Edited on December 19, 2008 at 9:06 PM. Reason : foo]

12/19/2008 9:06:31 PM

If you got results of a polls of each congressman's constituents, I wonder what the average would be? 80%?

Not sure I can really use the overall congressional approval rating for anything.

12/19/2008 10:04:10 PM

Quote :

"You sound like a friggin UAW guy calling into a radio show, for God's sakes."

If by ideological extreme, yeah, he's you're man...which is why half his posts are just ridiculous.

12/19/2008 10:06:18 PM

good job Agent 0... you really.. said nothing

12/19/2008 11:22:36 PM

Well, the Democrat-led Congress did pull their approval rating up from 9 percent to 11 percent, so. . . .

12/20/2008 7:58:54 AM

Quote :

"* Reasonable pay is a necessary but not sufficient condition for quality of work. I am sure you know the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions. Please put your college education from our fine alma mater to good use. * Who says that the pay for our enlisted men is good enough? * Not all Congressmen screw up our country; in fact some quite consistently defend its values as best they can. * Congressmen, even the good and non-corrupt ones, have a necessarily high cost of living. "

But is their pay reasonable? I don't think it is. I think we over pay most of our politicians, and I think the fact that they have direct control over their own pay is severely problematic. Our founding fathers attempted to correct for this by setting a limit that no changes in pay could take effect until after the next election of the people it effects, but unfortunately, we have so many career politicians that such a measure is ultimately useless. By tying their pay to some other measure hopefully we can help further correct for this failure. Further, if we're not getting quality work out of our representatives, I see no reason why we should continue to pay them at the level we are if that pay is supposed to be encouraging quality work (even if it in and of itself is not sufficient to guarantee quality work). Our politicians are supposed to be civil servants, not lords whom we placate with trinkets and monies in hopes that they don't fuck up our lives too badly. Regardless of the level of pay, we should demand quality work, then only when quality work is apparent should we reward them with increased pay.

Secondly, if the pay for enlisted men is not good enough, then I suggest that our taxes are better spent on increasing their pay, rather than increasing the pay of these men who already make more than most of their constituents.

Third, while it is true that some congressmen consistently defend the values of our country, they are often few and far between and are not often effective against their corrupt colleagues. Also, those who are consistent in their defense of our country's values, I would argue would continue to be so, even in the wake of reduced incomes.

And yes, a congressman has a high cost of living, but that is due mostly to needing to maintain to residencies. Of course, the military has a solution for that too. Barracks. Again, if its good enough for the men and women who serve, its good enough for congress. And yes, I'm being purposefully ridiculous in this point. There is a world of difference between cramming two strangers to a tiny room dorm hall style and the standard of living congressmen have now, I think we can find some middle ground.

Of course, getting lost in the details ignores that the point is that congress is overpaid and corrupt, and has fairly direct control over their pay and little incentive to keep that down. I am not suggesting, as Ben Franklin did, that we don't pay our congressmen at all, but I am saying we need to seriously rethink how we compensate our politicians.

12/20/2008 10:31:50 AM

[Edited on December 20, 2008 at 10:52 AM. Reason : 

12/20/2008 10:51:58 AM

Quote :

"Barracks."

I love it!

No politician should ever get any type of automatic pay raise from taxpayers. Cost-of-Living increases should not be a reason for raises. Raises should come from improvement in job performance and results.

Congressmen do not deserve a $4700 raise just because they messed up the economy so everyone's cost-of-living went up.

12/20/2008 10:56:39 AM

Quote :

"But is their pay reasonable? I don't think it is."

Who cares what you think? If you're going to make an argument, cite some numbers and show how they're out of line with typical cost of living, expenses, etc. for non-corrupt congresspeople. How about some facts instead of stupid polemic about the founding fathers?

At ~$170k the average member of Congress who makes our laws, has executive responsibility for a staff, has to travel constantly between DC and home, run campaigns, etc. etc. is making only around what a typical upper middle manager in a good company makes (and with far less job security).

You can't even discuss this from the basic principle if you can't show that the "level of pay" itself is actually outlandish.

Quote :

"I suggest that our taxes are better spent on increasing their pay, rather than increasing the pay of these men who already make more than most of their constituents."

It's not like we trade off one for the other. I suppose we could spend less money on polar bear exhibits and raise salaries for both congressmen and enlisted men.

Quote :

"if its good enough for the men and women who serve, its good enough for congress."

Whatever. I think you're just waving the flag to avoid having a substantive discussion.

First of all, you can think that way all you want. What it'll do is lower the quality of "applicants" for the job. Who the fuck wants to leave their family and take on all the responsibility of a Congress person (listed above), not to mention a successful career, to live such a life?

Sure, there are saints out there. I'm sure we could attract a few. But likely not 535 nationwide.

Oh, I can see your rebuttal now -- but enlisted men do it! So? Most enlistees are how old? 18? And let's face it; as I've said forever, the military is a profession and people very often join because the private sector doesn't give enough opportunity. Enlisted men get barracks because it's what they deserve; and they choose the lifestyle because it's better than what they could have otherwise.

Get real.

[Edited on December 20, 2008 at 3:19 PM. Reason : foo]

[Edited on December 20, 2008 at 3:39 PM. Reason : foo]

12/20/2008 3:18:52 PM

Oh yea, and another reason your argument is completely insane: Nancy Fucking Pelosi.

Quote :

"Again, if its good enough for the men and women who serve, its good enough for congress."

Yes -- Let them eat cake, he says!

I'll tell you exactly what type of people that idea will attract to congressional seats. Nancy Pelosi.

Quote :

"The Pelosi family has a net worth of nearly $19 million as of 2007, primarily from investments. In addition to their large portfolio of jointly owned San Francisco Bay Area real estate, the couple also owns a vineyard in St. Helena, California, valued at $5 million to $25 million. Pelosi's husband also owns stock, including $5 million in Apple Computer. Pelosi continues to be among the richest members of Congress.[8]"

(wikipedia, you can find it)

Yes, we will DEFINITELY punish inept congressional leaders like Pelosi by denying them a $170k/year salary.

Reality: the actual "citizen legislators" will take the hit, and elitist "Let them eat cake" bitches like Pelosi will thrive on the magnanimity of their "sacrifice."

Again: get real.

12/20/2008 3:33:46 PM

Being in congress shouldn't be viewed as a job to begin with. Having career politicians is one of the main problems with our system, and them having such high pay only increases the incentive for them to stay in.

Again, one and done term limits would fix this problem. Pay raises don't effect until the next class, and no one voting for the pay raises would receive that increase of pay. Heaven forbid we have men and women who serve in congress because of a sense of duty rather than for money/power.

12/20/2008 4:20:11 PM

^

Your argument is so obscenely backwards, it's mind boggling. How does paying congress people _less_ encourage fewer career politicians? If you pay people less, then the only people who can afford to be in Congress to begin with are rich people like Nancy Pelosi.

And term limits don't have anything to do with this issue. There still has to be a fixed rate for people to be able to serve in Congress; and neither you nor 1337 have substantiated in any way why the current one is "too high." It's easier just to spout platitudes and complain than to have a real discussion.

12/20/2008 6:00:52 PM

Congressmen, for legitimate reasons fundamental to their job, do have to meet and entertain important statesmen, industrialists, what have you. Ideally in these meetings the congressmen should project an image that does not imply abject poverty. In short, no barracks.

Also, most congressmen have families, and isolating them in barracks away from their loved ones is probably not conducive to them doing their job.

Also, I have a good friend who is an enlisted man who is getting handed extra money by the Navy so that he can move into housing outside of his normal military quarters. I gather that this is quite common when you're stateside, which, generally, is somewhere that we expect our representatives to be.

Also, barracks are designed as such with specific goals in mind, including discipline and deprivation to break down individuality. Very few people think that similar goals should be preserved with a body whose purpose is to debate, deliberate, and pass legislation.

The purpose of soldiers is different from the purpose of legislators. Your attempts to equalize them and, I assume, gain some respect for your devotion to the plight of the troops or some shit, is inherently doomed to failure.

---

Quote :

"Having career politicians is one of the main problems with our system, and them having such high pay only increases the incentive for them to stay in."

I should think that most congressmen could make more money by quitting their jobs and returning to the private sector. As Smoker4 pointed out, many of them are wealthy enough that their congressional salaries are just a drop in the bucket.

People don't run for congress to make money. Undoubtedly many of them spend more getting elected than they get paid during their term. People run for congress for the power -- in the best cases, the power to do good for their country, in the worst cases, the power to do good for some campaign contributors and bribe-peddlers so that they can line up a cushy, higher-paying job once they leave office.

Quote :

"a typical upper middle manager in a good company makes (and with far less job security). "

I doubt this is entirely accurate. The incumbency rate in congress is pretty staggering, having stayed pretty consistently in the mid-90% range for decades. No matter what the job security for an upper middle manager is, it's mathematically impossible for it to be far higher than that of a congressman.

Quote :

"Raises should come from improvement in job performance and results."

How in the holy hell do you measure this in a congressman? Say a district elects a representative to pass Bill XYZ, say, which is wildly popular in that district but is strongly opposed in the rest of the country. He can yell and holler and kick and scream and do everything possible to pass that bill for 24 hours a day and not produce any results. Likewise, a congressman from an easy district that only likes broadly popular things doesn't have to do shit except show up for the vote, and he'll produce major results for his district.

For that matter, who assesses job performance and results? The constituency? Are individual states going to decide how much to pay their senators, based on how pleased they are with them? I can't wait to see the Senator from Alabama wearing a barrel because he had to sell all his clothes. He'll be sitting next to the Senator from Massachusetts, who will have a bean-bag chair full of diamonds.

Does some aspect of the Federal government decide who to give raises to? That doesn't make much sense. Districts and states are the ones that elect the little shits, and we do so because we have certain expectations. But there's Senator Barrel (R-AL) again.

Congress isn't a pet store. Giving bonuses to salespeople because they effectively make money is a plan that makes sense. If I can't sell dogs worth a damn (and how!), I make less money than, just hypothetically here, my lunatic ex-girlfriend who sells dogs quite effectively. This system encourages a specific, measurable behavior -- the number and price of dogs sold. How do you apply that to Congress?

12/20/2008 7:25:04 PM

Quote :

"good job Agent 0... you really.. said nothing"

so im on par with this thread then!

im merely pointing out the molehill you all are making into such a mountain

or as marko might say

RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE

12/20/2008 7:58:36 PM

Quote :

"Reality: the actual "citizen legislators" will take the hit, and elitist "Let them eat cake" bitches like Pelosi will thrive on the magnanimity of their "sacrifice." "

True Reality: the power is what allows them to get rich, dumbass.

12/20/2008 9:28:21 PM

Quote :

"True Reality: the power is what allows them to get rich, dumbass."

A healthy proportion of them were rich when they got elected. A padded bank account is pretty much essential to run a campaign for national office. Certainly the power helps them get richer, but none of that changes the fact that reducing their pay will do exactly -0- to help a problem that has to do with their power.

12/20/2008 10:21:19 PM

Quote :

"im merely pointing out the molehill you all are making into such a mountain"

My point is they don't deserve a $4,700.00 raise, and that's about it.

12/20/2008 10:47:06 PM

lol I'm sure that $4,700 increase is fucking vital to their living


how are some of you actually defending this

12/20/2008 10:53:02 PM

I don't think they need the raise, and I'm not sure that the system of automatic periodic raises is a good idea.* I do know that, at the moment, there are a lot of things I'd much rather Congress be worrying about than $2.5 million in raises. Even for His Holiness Barack Obama, political capital is a limited asset, and everyone should be focusing it on stuff that matters in a tangible way, not stuff that just kind of pisses us off and comes at an embarrassing time.

*I say this because while automatic raises sound pretty bad, at least they help keep congress from wasting even more time and money debating about whether or not to give themselves the same (or greater) raises periodically.

I wonder how many of them will just donate the raise (or even donate their entire salaries) to a charity. It's certainly not unheard of -- as has been pointed out, a lot of these guys are already loaded, and handing out most of the actual congressional pay looks good.

12/20/2008 11:13:22 PM

Quote :

"I should think that most congressmen could make more money by quitting their jobs and returning to the private sector. "

I wish they would- this decade's batch of politicians have messed up the country long enough.

Quote :

"Are individual states going to decide how much to pay their senators"

Under the Articles of Confederation, congressional reps were paid by their respective states. So if the state legislation became displeased with a congressman, they simply stopped paying him.

The Framers weakened state gov'ts by having the congress paid by the new federal gov't. Originally, senators and representatives received $6.00 per day they attended congress. (about $72 in today's money)

Quote :

"many of them are wealthy enough that their congressional salaries are just a drop in the bucket."

Then if the money isn't a big thing, they shouldn't get too upset if we cut them back from making $14,500 PER MONTH! From the noises they make, politicians are just in it to help the public, right?

12/20/2008 11:39:37 PM

It's a little hypocritical that they demand the car leadership to take a $1 salary, when congress hasn't been in the black for 8 years now (using Clinton's projected budget balance).

And considering not even all other gov employees get raises that keep track with inflation, congress definitely needs to review their automatic raises.

12/20/2008 11:46:12 PM

Quote :

"ho cares what you think? If you're going to make an argument, cite some numbers and show how they're out of line with typical cost of living, expenses, etc. for non-corrupt congresspeople. How about some facts instead of stupid polemic about the founding fathers? "

Well, lets see, our cousins across the pond pay their reps £63,291, or roughly $94,399 (http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/members/pay_mps.cfm), hell, they only pay members of the EU ~$116,911 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_of_the_European_Parliament) and those guys represent a whole fucking country. Sweden's MPs make ~$99,600 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_of_Parliament).

So yeah, I think we might just overpay our reps just a little.

Quote :

"At ~$170k the average member of Congress who makes our laws, has executive responsibility for a staff, has to travel constantly between DC and home, run campaigns, etc. etc. is making only around what a typical upper middle manager in a good company makes (and with far less job security). "

It's good that they have responsibility for a staff, so do many of the middle managers in their pay range. Travel expenses are quite often paid for by others (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2006/06/congressional_travel_50_millio.html) and honestly, I don't care if they have campaigns to run, they can find other ways to raise that money.

As far as job security goes, how many congressmen are losing their jobs this year? I bet there are a crap ton of ex middle managers that would love congressional job security right now. See also Grumpy's point.

Quote :

"It's not like we trade off one for the other. I suppose we could spend less money on polar bear exhibits and raise salaries for both congressmen and enlisted men. "

Indeed we could, but we're not doing that either are we?

Quote :

"Who the fuck wants to leave their family and take on all the responsibility of a Congress person (listed above), not to mention a successful career, to live such a life? Sure, there are saints out there. I'm sure we could attract a few. But likely not 535 nationwide. "

So instead of people who would willingly sacrifice some of their time to serve this country and represent their state and interests at the federal level, we would rather people who are just there to collect a pay check and grab power?

Quote :

"Oh yea, and another reason your argument is completely insane: Nancy Fucking Pelosi. ... Reality: the actual "citizen legislators" will take the hit, and elitist "Let them eat cake" bitches like Pelosi will thrive on the magnanimity of their "sacrifice." "

In case you haven't noticed, the high pay hasn't exactly kept the Pelosi's out of power either. In fact, for the most part, the "citizen legislator" is a myth:

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1330776120080313

Quote :

"The median net worth of senators was estimated at $1.7 million and House of Representatives members at $675,000, said the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington watchdog group that monitors the influence of money on government. ... Based on three years of data through 2006, the most recent available, the center said 58 percent of senators could be considered millionaires, and 44 percent of House members. Only about one percent of all U.S. adults had a net worth exceeding $1 million around the same time, the center said."

Quote :

"How does paying congress people _less_ encourage fewer career politicians? If you pay people less, then the only people who can afford to be in Congress to begin with are rich people like Nancy Pelosi."

Or conversely, only those willing to sacrifice some of their time for their country will serve, and the rich will find the power without perks not up to the power and perks they could obtain elsewhere.

Quote :

"Congressmen, for legitimate reasons fundamental to their job, do have to meet and entertain important statesmen, industrialists, what have you. Ideally in these meetings the congressmen should project an image that does not imply abject poverty. In short, no barracks. ... The purpose of soldiers is different from the purpose of legislators. Your attempts to equalize them and, I assume, gain some respect for your devotion to the plight of the troops or some shit, is inherently doomed to failure. "

I already said I was being intentionally ridiculous in regards to barracks, merely pointing out there there is a considerable world of difference between what they have now and what others do. I think we could find some middle ground here.

Quote :

"I should think that most congressmen could make more money by quitting their jobs and returning to the private sector. As Smoker4 pointed out, many of them are wealthy enough that their congressional salaries are just a drop in the bucket. People don't run for congress to make money. Undoubtedly many of them spend more getting elected than they get paid during their term. People run for congress for the power -- in the best cases, the power to do good for their country, in the worst cases, the power to do good for some campaign contributors and bribe-peddlers so that they can line up a cushy, higher-paying job once they leave office."

If this is the case, then why pay them at all? If the pay doesn't matter, then lets just get rid of it all together. Or, if we're still concerned about the "citizen legislators" lets tie it to net worth, the wealthier you are, the less you get paid as a rep.

Quote :

"How in the holy hell do you measure this in a congressman? Say a district elects a representative to pass Bill XYZ, say, which is wildly popular in that district but is strongly opposed in the rest of the country. He can yell and holler and kick and scream and do everything possible to pass that bill for 24 hours a day and not produce any results. Likewise, a congressman from an easy district that only likes broadly popular things doesn't have to do shit except show up for the vote, and he'll produce major results for his district."

Well, we already poll nationally for overall congressional approval, why not come up with some official poll method for that, which then correlates to pay. <25% approval = pay cut, 25%-75% = no change, >75% = pay raise. Of course there is the issue of preventing gaming the polling system, but again, getting mired in the details at this point distracts from the need to change things in the first place.

12/21/2008 12:19:20 AM

Quote :

"Well, the Democrat-led Congress did pull their approval rating up from 9 percent to 11 percent, so. . . ."

and it would have never even been a "Democrat-led Congress" if 6 years of Republican leadership didn't drive it straight into the ditch, in the first place.

bitch and moan all you want, but your Reps flat-out gave it to the Dems. nice spin attempt tho. you get half a point for that.

12/21/2008 1:17:05 AM

christ in a sidecar

until something gets solved

or at least worked on in a manner that isn't a symbolic maneuver...so that america as a whole can show some progress

please stop pumping football victory dances

please

12/21/2008 1:54:26 AM

Quote :

"Under the Articles of Confederation, congressional reps were paid by their respective states. So if the state legislation became displeased with a congressman, they simply stopped paying him. "

Again, this leads to the potential for some hefty disparity between the pay of representatives from various states, which is not something I think is desirable or helpful. Aside from which, I see this mostly as a tool for political games between state legislators and congressmen. Generally we have democratic state government in NC, but a fair share of Republican congressmen. It's not a situation I see ending well. If for no other reason, because I elect my representative from my congressional district, in part so that he will represent it, specifically. He's already got enough people trying to distract him from that -- I don't need the state legislators from all the other districts in NC trying to boss him around, too.

Quote :

"Then if the money isn't a big thing, they shouldn't get too upset if we cut them back from making $14,500 PER MONTH!"

Well, hold the horses. I suspect there are those "citizen representatives" for whom the salary is necessary to maintain a reasonable standard of living. It could be cut back, sure, no problem for anybody, and the raises probably need to be looked at again. But I suspect that you and I have different interpretations of "cut them back."

Quote :

"I already said I was being intentionally ridiculous in regards to barracks, merely pointing out there there is a considerable world of difference between what they have now and what others do."

As well, perhaps, there should be. The past eight years have demonstrated to us that the Joe Six-pack image isn't exactly helpful in the Federal Government. We don't want Congress or the Presidency filled with regular guys, and we shouldn't try to contrast them -- even ridiculously -- with regular guys in such a negative light.

Quote :

"If this is the case, then why pay them at all? If the pay doesn't matter, then lets just get rid of it all together. Or, if we're still concerned about the "citizen legislators" lets tie it to net worth, the wealthier you are, the less you get paid as a rep."

Even if there weren't one single citizen legislator at the moment, why would you want to alter the system in a way that makes them even less likely to ever reappear?

I thought about tying it to wealth. Most of the time it would probably work out pretty well, actually, because even though you could move some of it around to other members of your family or inner circle to appear less wealthy and get paid more, the work and risk of scandal involved would probably deter most such activity.

Quote :

"Well, we already poll nationally for overall congressional approval, why not come up with some official poll method for that, which then correlates to pay. <25% approval = pay cut, 25%-75% = no change, >75% = pay raise. Of course there is the issue of preventing gaming the polling system, but again, getting mired in the details at this point distracts from the need to change things in the first place."

Sorry, you don't get to propose setting up a system that is so subjective and susceptible to manipulation, and then try to dodge these obvious, glaring, insurmountable flaws by calling discussion of them "getting mired in the details."

12/21/2008 3:27:02 AM

Quote :

"As well, perhaps, there should be. The past eight years have demonstrated to us that the Joe Six-pack image isn't exactly helpful in the Federal Government. We don't want Congress or the Presidency filled with regular guys, and we shouldn't try to contrast them -- even ridiculously -- with regular guys in such a negative light. "

Perhaps, but I think there's also a significant difference between Joe Six-pack as a leader and Joe Six-pack as a representative. If your representatives are so far removed from the lifestyle of the people they are paid to represent, are they truly representing them? That is to say, it's fantastic that we want to have all of our reps as high class upper crust folk, but if the representative from the Detroit area of Michigan has never worked a blue collar job a day in his life, and has never lived in anything smaller than a 5 bedroom house in the suburbs, does he really represent the people from his district? Again, I'm not saying we need our reps to be pulled from the ghettos but there is a substantial difference between ghetto poor and $1 million+ net worth.

Quote :

"I thought about tying it to wealth. Most of the time it would probably work out pretty well, actually, because even though you could move some of it around to other members of your family or inner circle to appear less wealthy and get paid more, the work and risk of scandal involved would probably deter most such activity. "

It does seem to be the easiest way to get some measure of control, but still doesn't solve the problem of them being able to directly vote for their wages. There has to be some way to effectively remove that control from congress and tie it to something that gives them an incentive to keep their wages down to reasonable levels.

Quote :

"Sorry, you don't get to propose setting up a system that is so subjective and susceptible to manipulation, and then try to dodge these obvious, glaring, insurmountable flaws by calling discussion of them "getting mired in the details.""

Well, how do we determine whether or not congress is doing a good job? As citizens it is our responsibility to elect the representatives that will represent our needs and desires on a federal level. Clearly they either do or do not do this, but I seriously doubt that with an overall 11% approval rating, that ~90% (as you pointed out, the incumbent victory rate) are doing their job well, and its only that last 10% that lose that are driving down the ratings. Honestly, there needs to be some sort of measure to the performance of congress, else how do we know they are doing what we pay them to do at all? Obviously a polling system has its problems, but I don't think they are insurmountable. But what objective form of measurement is as responsive to current performance and robust enough to help us gauge performance? You could measure the number of laws that get struck down by the supreme court, but that's fairly rare and lags by years. I'm willing to discuss trying to come up with a reasonable solution, I just don't think that the current solution of auto raises and direct congressional control of the pay rate is working out well.

12/21/2008 7:51:48 AM

Quote :

"So yeah, I think we might just overpay our reps just a little."

Seriously, I just want for your benefit to look at what I said:

Quote :

"ite some numbers and show how they're out of line with typical cost of living, expenses, etc. for non-corrupt congresspeople"

And what did you do? You looked up numbers for European bureaucrats? How in any way does that account for how much congresspeople here should actually be paid?

You are just too intellectually lazy to discuss something this basic. It's sad, really.

Quote :

" As far as job security goes, how many congressmen are losing their jobs this year?"

You just don't know what you're talking about. You're too tone deaf or brain dead or something to address my basic point. No middle to upper management person I know has to run a sophisticated campaign just to keep his job every two years. Certainly it's not often the case that they had to risk a good portion of their own money and credit to get the job to begin with.

Quote :

"Indeed we could, but we're not doing that either are we? "

Well, why don't you run for Congress then?

Quote :

"we would rather people who are just there to collect a pay check and grab power?"

That's what you're proposing, not me. Under the regime of underpaid congresspeople, only the rich power whores can afford to be legislators.

Quote :

" In case you haven't noticed, the high pay hasn't exactly kept the Pelosi's out of power either."

In case you haven't noticed, that isn't an argument against my basic point. Again, let me reiterate: you need to try this whole "thinking" thing when you reply.

For example: that article you linked has nothing to do with anything we're talking about. It certainly doesn't assert that members of Congress got rich by making $170k/year. I know plenty of people who make $170k/year who aren't rich, certainly not multi-millionaires.

So what does the median net worth of congresspeople have to do with anything we're talking about? We're talking about the base pay rate, and you are too intellectually lazy to just have a simple discussion about that. You redirect the conversation to European salaries, "median net worth," etc. The base pay rate for a member of congress should accommodate the lowliest citizen who runs and wins, and gives up a paying job to serve effectively.

Surely you can get this through your damned head -- Congress has to accommodate the lowest net worth individual who happens to be elected, and allow him to serve effectively. This idea that because the "median" is high, nobody should make anything -- is idiotic. The principle behind Congress, one worth fighting for, is the idea that anyone who is elected can serve. We shouldn't discourage people from running just because they are, say, farmers (Jon Tester, cough).

Quote :

" Well, we already poll nationally for overall congressional approval, why not come up with some official poll method for that, which then correlates to pay. <25% approval = pay cut, 25%-75% = no change, >75% = pay raise. Of course there is the issue of preventing gaming the polling system, but again, getting mired in the details at this point distracts from the need to change things in the first place."

What the fuck is wrong with you? Seriously? This is a democracy. If people don't like Congress, they can be kicked out. That amounts to a pay rate of $0 for the incumbents who lose. What more can you ask for?

12/21/2008 11:08:13 AM

Quote :

"And what did you do? You looked up numbers for European bureaucrats? How in any way does that account for how much congresspeople here should actually be paid? "

It compares our representatives to their closest equivalents in other countries, seems like a good way to examine if our representatives are over paid. Surely the duties of being say an MP in england are comparable to being a congress critter. If you want to compare costs of living, you can look at something like this http://www.mercer.com/costoflivingpr, where London places near the top of the list and DC isn't even in the top 50. Or if you prefer, we can look at US congressional history: http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/97-1011.pdf, until 1850 we paid our congressmen $6 per day that they were in session and actually present. It wasn't until the 1850s that we started paying them a yearly salary. How else do we determine if we over pay our representatives except by comparing their pay to other similar representatives?

Quote :

"No middle to upper management person I know has to run a sophisticated campaign just to keep his job every two years. Certainly it's not often the case that they had to risk a good portion of their own money and credit to get the job to begin with. "

And no congressman that I know of has had to meet any sort of arbitrary metrics, or get a project done on time lest they be fired. And when the government goes into the red I don't see congress getting down sized. Lets take a poll of congressmen and Circuit City middle managers and see who thinks they have the most job security.

Quote :

"That's what you're proposing, not me. Under the regime of underpaid congresspeople, only the rich power whores can afford to be legislators. "

Any proof of that? When we paid our representatives $6 per day, only when they were actually present, did we only have rich power whores for representatives?

Quote :

"In case you haven't noticed, that isn't an argument against my basic point. Again, let me reiterate: you need to try this whole "thinking" thing when you reply. For example: that article you linked has nothing to do with anything we're talking about. It certainly doesn't assert that members of Congress got rich by making $170k/year. I know plenty of people who make $170k/year who aren't rich, certainly not multi-millionaires. So what does the median net worth of congresspeople have to do with anything we're talking about? We're talking about the base pay rate, and you are too intellectually lazy to just have a simple discussion about that. You redirect the conversation to European salaries, "median net worth," etc. The base pay rate for a member of congress should accommodate the lowliest citizen who runs and wins, and gives up a paying job to serve effectively."

I know your smarter than this. You're the one asserting that the high pay of congress is the only thing holding back the tide of rich power whores from controlling or being a primary presence in congress and giving us our "citizen legislators". My assertion, evidenced by looking at congressional net worth, is that the "citizen legislator" is largely a myth and that congress is already full of rich power whores.

Quote :

"What the fuck is wrong with you? Seriously? This is a democracy. If people don't like Congress, they can be kicked out. That amounts to a pay rate of $0 for the incumbents who lose. What more can you ask for?"

It still doesn't do anything about the fact that the ones who got voted in being over paid.

And you're right, it is a democracy, so we should be able to do things like vote to tie our representative's pay to a measure of their performance.

12/21/2008 9:19:45 PM

Quote :

"It compares our representatives to their closest equivalents in other countries, seems like a good way to examine if our representatives are over paid."

Is this kinda like when someone says "hey, look at their shit hole of a country, our's doesn't look so bad now, huh?"

Quote :

" And no congressman that I know of has had to meet any sort of arbitrary metrics, or get a project done on time lest they be fired."

My guess is you haven't worked in any large company, ever? You can go across the entire world and find tons upon tons of middle managers that are essentially zero value add to their organization and are pulling down 150k plus no problem. I can name right now about 5 of them at my site of 300 that are wastes of space. But they put in their time and they are taken care of and they don't have to campaign to defend their positions.

Quote :

" I know your smarter than this. You're the one asserting that the high pay of congress is the only thing holding back the tide of rich power whores from controlling or being a primary presence in congress and giving us our "citizen legislators"."

He isn't asserting that at all, please go back and read again.

12/21/2008 9:37:26 PM

Quote :

"Is this kinda like when someone says "hey, look at their shit hole of a country, our's doesn't look so bad now, huh?""

If by "shit hole of a country" you mean "one of our peers on the world stage" and if by "doesn't look so bad" you mean "seems to do a better job than we do at this" then yes I suppose it could be like that.

Quote :

"My guess is you haven't worked in any large company, ever? You can go across the entire world and find tons upon tons of middle managers that are essentially zero value add to their organization and are pulling down 150k plus no problem. I can name right now about 5 of them at my site of 300 that are wastes of space. But they put in their time and they are taken care of and they don't have to campaign to defend their positions. "

I work in a huge company, I'm well aware there are a significant number of middle mangers who are useless. But again, it doesn't appear our congressmen are in much fear of losing their jobs, else they might not do shit like pass multi billion dollar bailouts that most of the country are not in favor of. Sure they have to campaign, but compared to their competitors, incumbents (as Grumpy pointed out) have a significant home field advantage: http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php.

Also, in terms of needing a salary to campaign, it doesn't appear that our reps do a significant amount of self financing of their campaigns http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/wherefrom.php?cycle=2006

Quote :

"He isn't asserting that at all, please go back and read again."

Quote :

"Oh yea, and another reason your argument is completely insane: Nancy Fucking Pelosi. ... I'll tell you exactly what type of people that idea will attract to congressional seats. Nancy Pelosi. ... Reality: the actual "citizen legislators" will take the hit, and elitist "Let them eat cake" bitches like Pelosi will thrive on the magnanimity of their "sacrifice." "

Sounds to me like he's saying paying such a good wage is the only thing (or a major part in) keeping our "citizen legislators" around.

12/21/2008 10:13:18 PM

Quote :

"But again, it doesn't appear our congressmen are in much fear of losing their jobs, else they might not do shit like pass multi billion dollar bailouts that most of the country are not in favor of."

This is so inane I don't know how to reply to it.

Quote :

""seems to do a better job than we do at this""

Rofl, who says, and again, by what metrics? Oh thats right, the "they should do it on a volunteer basis for no pay because that's what my kooky ideology dictates" basis. So I suppose closer to zero pay does mean "better job of it".

12/21/2008 10:30:24 PM

Quote :

"but if the representative from the Detroit area of Michigan has never worked a blue collar job a day in his life, and has never lived in anything smaller than a 5 bedroom house in the suburbs, does he really represent the people from his district?"

OK, this isn't "represents" as in "is typical of."

Congressmen don't represent you by living your life, or even the lives of most people. Most people cannot and should not run for congress. Most people don't have the knowledge or even simple brainpower. Most people do not have the money. Most people don't even vote for the goddamn thing (or close enough to it, anyway).

You represent your district or state by hearing its needs and acting accordingly.

Quote :

"There has to be some way to effectively remove that control from congress and tie it to something that gives them an incentive to keep their wages down to reasonable levels."

You seem to have trouble grasping that Congress already has an incentive: We can vote them out. If they do that, they can't collect any salary for the job! If that's not a goddamn incentive, I don't know what is.

Any outside body to which you give control of congressional wages will inevitably abuse that power for more nefarious purposes that handing yourself a few grand. The executive branch would only use it to increase its power over the legislative. An independent body, no matter who appoints it -- the parties, the government, the people, the states -- will act based on some factor other than congressional performance.

Quote :

"Well, how do we determine whether or not congress is doing a good job?"

That's exactly the same question I've been asking.

Of course, I've already supplied the real answer. We, as individuals, periodically decide whether we want our members of congress to keep their jobs. We make our vote for "yea" or "nay." That is the ultimate means of accountability.

Quote :

"Clearly they either do or do not do this, but I seriously doubt that with an overall 11% approval rating, that ~90% (as you pointed out, the incumbent victory rate) are doing their job well, and its only that last 10% that lose that are driving down the ratings."

But think about what you're saying there. A high percentage of incumbents win for a variety of reasons -- name recognition, clout, money -- but what that all boils down to is that come election day their constituency, for good reason or bad, approves of the incumbent more. And, indeed, all over the country you see that people have much higher approval ratings for their representatives than for congress in general.

Because the approval rating for congress isn't a national tally of individual district approval ratings for individual legislators. When you're asked whether you approved congress, you're asked to include several hundred guys, only three of which represent you.

Well, shit. I'm not really displeased with my current Senator or Representative (I was displeased with Dole, and so I helped vote her out of her salary altogether). I'm fairly displeased with Congress, though.

So it's not that 10% of the congressmen are dragging the rating down, and to even mention the concept shows that you have a seriously wanting grasp on these statistics.

Quote :

"But what objective form of measurement is as responsive to current performance and robust enough to help us gauge performance?"

All of what I just said brings me to this point. If you're unsatisfied with how congress is paid, you can tell your representative and Senators. If they won't do anything about it, you can vote against them. But you can't tell a Representative from Georgia that you disapprove of him, he needs to get paid less.

Moreover, there is absolutely no reasonable, objective measurement of performance for a legislator. It is impossible, if for no other reason that "performance," in a partisan body, must invariably be tied to partisan interests.

12/23/2008 1:17:44 AM

A drop in the bucket? Problem is, it's getting dropped in the wrong bucket. Please drop some in my bucket too. KTHNKSBYE!

12/23/2008 8:14:23 AM

Quote :

"OK, this isn't "represents" as in "is typical of." Congressmen don't represent you by living your life, or even the lives of most people. Most people cannot and should not run for congress. Most people don't have the knowledge or even simple brainpower. Most people do not have the money. Most people don't even vote for the goddamn thing (or close enough to it, anyway). You represent your district or state by hearing its needs and acting accordingly. "

Right, but there must be some amount of "being there". That's why even in the constitution representatives had to be residents of the state they were representing, and why even today, Hillary had to buy property in NYC to get her senate seat. And surely it is desirable to have a representative that has some experience in the life and style of the people they are representing. I'm not saying I want UAW line workers being reps, but at the same time, we don't want an aristocracy that's barely had to wipe their own ass either. There is a considerable difference between well off and privileged and intelligent and capable, even if they do tend to coincide with each other. But this part is really the state's problem. They have the authority to determine the qualifications of their representatives.

Quote :

"You seem to have trouble grasping that Congress already has an incentive: We can vote them out. If they do that, they can't collect any salary for the job! If that's not a goddamn incentive, I don't know what is. "

But with a 90% incumbency rate, that's only an incentive in the same way that the risk of being fired from your job is an incentive to control costs and do better. It might be enough to keep you doing the bare minimum, but in both cases you're talking a rather extreme measure that isn't often used, except in extreme cases of failure. It also leads to the problem of forcing you to chose to get rid of a representative who may otherwise be decent, but has perhaps slipped up or done something wrong that s/he needs to be punished for, but not necessarily removed from office.

Quote :

"Any outside body to which you give control of congressional wages will inevitably abuse that power for more nefarious purposes that handing yourself a few grand. The executive branch would only use it to increase its power over the legislative. An independent body, no matter who appoints it -- the parties, the government, the people, the states -- will act based on some factor other than congressional performance. "

Which is why I didn't propose giving it to an outside body. I proposed tying it to something else that congress has control over but that takes the direct control of their salary out of their hands. By tying it to say, military pay, they can still choose to raise their salary (or lower it) but doing so will have further reaching effects than just a couple million dollars, ensuring that congress voting themselves more public money becomes more than just a "drop in a bucket". After all, if this country does go broke, it won't be from a $700 Billion bail out, it will be a death by a thousand paper cuts, all those drops in a bucket add up to one very full bucket.

Quote :

"Well, shit. I'm not really displeased with my current Senator or Representative (I was displeased with Dole, and so I helped vote her out of her salary altogether). I'm fairly displeased with Congress, though. "

Right, you're not that displeased, but say that next election, you're not keen on how your rep performed, but your other option is Dole running again. As you said, by reelecting our representatives we are expressing out approval, but what if you don't approve, you just didn't like the other option? I think we need a more fine grained way to incentivize our representatives.

Quote :

"If you're unsatisfied with how congress is paid, you can tell your representative and Senators. If they won't do anything about it, you can vote against them. But you can't tell a Representative from Georgia that you disapprove of him, he needs to get paid less."

Yet the problem remains that as congress' and the federal government's power has increased, representatives from other states have a significant impact of the day to day lives of people in other states, more so today than they ever had in the past, perhaps it is time to give the rest of the country a bit more power to influence all of congress, and not just their own representatives.

Quote :

"Moreover, there is absolutely no reasonable, objective measurement of performance for a legislator. It is impossible, if for no other reason that "performance," in a partisan body, must invariably be tied to partisan interests."

So then if all possible measures of a representatives performance are subjective, than whether they remain in office or not (their current incentive) is based on subjective measurement. What then is the problem if other incentives are similarly measured on subjective judgements? Put another way, why is it ok that whether or not your rep stays in office is based on subjective judgements, but not whether or not they get a raise or a pay cut?

12/23/2008 8:57:30 AM

Quote :

"why is it ok that whether or not your rep stays in office is based on subjective judgements, but not whether or not they get a raise or a pay cut?"

How 'bout we pay them what the average employee in their congressional district earns per year?

Or we could put them in a special game-show each year "Know Your Constitution" Each rep. would answer questions and prize money would be paid accordingly. And that would be their pay for the year.

12/23/2008 11:19:03 AM

Quote :

"And surely it is desirable to have a representative that has some experience in the life and style of the people they are representing."

If it is desirable, then voters will vote accordingly. That's why "personal narrative" is such a consideration in political candidates.

Quote :

"Right, but there must be some amount of "being there"."

This is primarily so that the representative will have a reason to spend time amongst their constituency, and so that the rep. has some stake in what happens in their district. It's not so that the representative can be a sample of the local population -- New York elected Hilary Clinton quite happily.

Quote :

"There is a considerable difference between well off and privileged and intelligent and capable, even if they do tend to coincide with each other."

Hey man, you're preaching to the choir on this one. I detest aristocracy as a means to undeserved power. Unfortunately, I can't see how you legislate against it. As with anything, you can just refrain from voting for it.

Quote :

"But with a 90% incumbency rate, that's only an incentive in the same way that the risk of being fired from your job is an incentive to control costs and do better."

This is the fault of voters just as much if not more so than anything else. Congressmen don't get re-elected 90% of the time because they're such excellent masters of smoke and mirrors, they do it because we as a whole are so easily fooled by even the most incompetent smoke and mirror show.

Quote :

"It also leads to the problem of forcing you to chose to get rid of a representative who may otherwise be decent, but has perhaps slipped up or done something wrong that s/he needs to be punished for, but not necessarily removed from office."

If the people express their complaint (through calls, mail, protests) and the representative doesn't change his course of action, then they're not otherwise decent and should be voted out.

Quote :

"Right, you're not that displeased, but say that next election, you're not keen on how your rep performed, but your other option is Dole running again."

This sounds more like a problem of the two-party electoral system than congressional pay, but OK. Clearly I would attempt to vote in my primary to give myself a better choice, but failing that, I would vote for the person I thought we be the smallest waste of a salary.

Besides, you've missed the point, which is that incumbency rate isn't really related to congressional approval in this context, despite your effort to make it seem like it is.

Quote :

"I think we need a more fine grained way to incentivize our representatives."

How does your proposal of "tying [congressional pay] to something else that congress has control over" incentivize them? It's still not performance-based, it's military-based (or whatever). Not that it matters. You're apparently still laboring under the misapprehension that their pay is a bigger incentive to most congressmen than other job perks.

Quote :

"By tying it to say, military pay, they can still choose to raise their salary (or lower it) but doing so will have further reaching effects than just a couple million dollars, ensuring that congress voting themselves more public money becomes more than just a "drop in a bucket"."

So we want to take a fairly minor budget item and make it much, much bigger? Before this is going to work, you definitely need to have rules in place to control deficit spending. Because all I see happening from this is that the same raise will be given out as normal, only it will have a much bigger impact on the budget that so few in congress are really concerned with.

Quote :

"Yet the problem remains that as congress' and the federal government's power has increased, representatives from other states have a significant impact of the day to day lives of people in other states, more so today than they ever had in the past, perhaps it is time to give the rest of the country a bit more power to influence all of congress, and not just their own representatives. "

So you want us to throw out of the concept of representative government, then. No longer do you concern yourself with your representative, but with everyone else's, too.

I don't think you realize how little sense your paragraph makes. Congress has always had the ability to influence individual states, and as a result, individual congressmen have always had the ability to influence states and districts other than their own. In fact, that's pretty much what always happens, by definition. Congressmen don't vote to just make laws for their own districts or states; if they wanted to do that, they'd be state assembly members. Any and every vote ever cast by any congressman ever has affected people from other states.

Quote :

"why is it ok that whether or not your rep stays in office is based on subjective judgements, but not whether or not they get a raise or a pay cut?"

Because the moment you talk about subjective judgments being made by someone other than voters to impact the legislative process, you are talking about something that is inevitably and by its very nature going to run contrary to the principles of democracy and representative government. And how that works is subject to who is being subjective:

Is some panel of appointed individuals going to be responsible for setting up the standards? Their standards will be slanted to whoever appoints them, not to the voters as a whole.

Is the executive branch responsible for the standards? Then it will change them to use as a carrot and a stick to influence legislators.

And so on, until all that's left is the voters. Sure, voters deciding how much their representatives get paid isn't inherently undemocratic. However, it has a number of pragmatic issues that prevent it from being useful:

Do the voters only affect the salaries of their own three congressmen? If so, won't that lead to potentially wide disparity among congressional pay depending on the wealth of electing states and districts? Isn't that counterproductive? And why would you ever raise congressional pay? I can see where lowering his pay as punishment would have a certain attraction, but how many people do you really think are going to walk into a booth and say, "You know what? I think Burr has done a really bang-up job this year. He deserves $5,000."

(Which brings up another point: there is a clear monetary incentive to performance that is positive that we already have: if you like a guy, you can donate an impressive some of money to his re-election campaign)

I don't think anybody's gonna do that. Pretty much ever, or at least, not until so long in the future that congressmen are going broke because inflation caught up with them.

And besides, doesn't voter control of congressional pay just mean that you're opening the door for even more campaigning? Now, besides having to run for re-election, they also have to do a side campaign urging you not to cut their paycheck, or even to add to it.

12/23/2008 3:09:44 PM

Quote :

"If the people express their complaint (through calls, mail, protests) and the representative doesn't change his course of action, then they're not otherwise decent and should be voted out. "

So then you can't imagine a situation where a representative deserves punishment for something but perhaps not being completely removed from office? I really do see that as a possible problem with our system, that the only method of punishment is removal from office. While I agree with you that voters as a whole fall for the dumbest of smoke a mirrors productions, I also believe that some of it is also a matter of preferring the known evil, or even liking their rep despite his flaws. The people should have another method of expressing displeasure that's between writing letters and firing their rep. Pay to me seems like a good one, but I'm open to other ideas if you have them. I mean, I suppose instead of directing salary we could have a system where by the people could vote to fine their representative.

Quote :

"You're apparently still laboring under the misapprehension that their pay is a bigger incentive to most congressmen than other job perks. "

Well, like I said before, if it isn't a big incentive to them, then it shouldn't matter if we cut it and save ourselves some money. Either way I see it as a win for the american people, and again, I'm not suggesting no pay, nor did our founding fathers (well, Ben Franklin did, but they decided paying them was a better idea), but I think we could safely cut the salaries of our congress critters to say ~100k and they would still do ok.

Quote :

"So we want to take a fairly minor budget item and make it much, much bigger? Before this is going to work, you definitely need to have rules in place to control deficit spending. Because all I see happening from this is that the same raise will be given out as normal, only it will have a much bigger impact on the budget that so few in congress are really concerned with."

True, but then again, I suppose I don't see a change like this happening without making changes to how we do budget anyways.

Quote :

"I don't think you realize how little sense your paragraph makes. Congress has always had the ability to influence individual states, and as a result, individual congressmen have always had the ability to influence states and districts other than their own. In fact, that's pretty much what always happens, by definition. Congressmen don't vote to just make laws for their own districts or states; if they wanted to do that, they'd be state assembly members. Any and every vote ever cast by any congressman ever has affected people from other states."

Right, but if you look at the way things were set up, the level of control congress had over the day to day lives of the people were limited, the power of the federal government was much less far reaching then than it is today, so I think its only fair that the reach of the individual voted be extended as well. Not to the degree that California can vote to remove South Carolina's representatives, but in such a way that if enough of the country is dissatisfied with the performance of congress as a whole, and not just their own representatives, that congress as a whole will feel it.

Quote :

"And so on, until all that's left is the voters. Sure, voters deciding how much their representatives get paid isn't inherently undemocratic. However, it has a number of pragmatic issues that prevent it from being useful: "

I never said that it should be left to anything except the voters.

Quote :

" If so, won't that lead to potentially wide disparity among congressional pay depending on the wealth of electing states and districts? Isn't that counterproductive? And why would you ever raise congressional pay? I can see where lowering his pay as punishment would have a certain attraction, but how many people do you really think are going to walk into a booth and say, "You know what? I think Burr has done a really bang-up job this year. He deserves $5,000." "

I don't see why it would lead to a disparity based on the wealth of the electing states. The states themselves wouldn't be paying the salary (directly anyway). I think you would have some differences, but I don't think as widely disparate as you think. As for raising their pay, I really don't think there's a whole lot of a problem with representatives having to go to their constituents and having to justify their pay, but that's if you want the pay to be separated by state or representative. Now I will admit that separating pay, because it is paid by federal taxes, does run the risk of bankrupting some states or people by pushing salaries too high, so I'm not much in favor of separate salaries. I suppose you could do something like the EU does, where the reps are paid the same as the highest paid rep in the individual country's legislative body, just substitute state for country.

Quote :

"And besides, doesn't voter control of congressional pay just mean that you're opening the door for even more campaigning? Now, besides having to run for re-election, they also have to do a side campaign urging you not to cut their paycheck, or even to add to it."

Again, I really don't see a problem with forcing our representatives to have to justify their pay to their constituents. I'm sure the costs of doing so will gladly be paid by whatever lobbyist wants to ensure the congressman's vote, just like reelection stuff is now.

12/23/2008 4:30:08 PM

Quote :

"So then you can't imagine a situation where a representative deserves punishment for something but perhaps not being completely removed from office?"

No. I'm saying that if the people disagree with a representative so strongly that they feel he deserves to be punished, and the people make that clear to the representative, and the representative does nothing, then whatever initially smaller thing he did is overshadowed by the fact that he apparently has no regard for his constituents, and that deserves being removed from office.

Quote :

"I also believe that some of it is also a matter of preferring the known evil, or even liking their rep despite his flaws. "

Then your problem is with voter stupidity and other flaws on our end.

Quote :

"Well, like I said before, if it isn't a big incentive to them, then it shouldn't matter if we cut it and save ourselves some money."

The problem is that the process of cutting the salary requires money in and of itself; more importantly, it costs political capital, effort, and will that is in limited supply and can almost invariably be applied better elsewhere. Even pushing the issue provides perverse incentives -- "I want you to do this, that, and the other difficult thing. Then I want you to cut your pay." Even putting that in the reverse order doesn't do much to "incentivize," now does it? If your boss demanded that you do a bunch of work and then, by the way, figure out how to cut your salary and spend it on other things, I doubt you'd go balls-out working on the thing.

Quote :

"Not to the degree that California can vote to remove South Carolina's representatives, but in such a way that if enough of the country is dissatisfied with the performance of congress as a whole, and not just their own representatives, that congress as a whole will feel it."

So punish the good with the bad, eh?

Quote :

"I don't see why it would lead to a disparity based on the wealth of the electing states. The states themselves wouldn't be paying the salary (directly anyway)."

Perhaps it wouldn't be based on the wealth of the state, but it could be based on a number of other unpleasant factors. I don't relish the idea of a representative who's a mile further to the far-right than his colleagues being rewarded by his district because it has similar politics. And why wouldn't they vote to reward Rep. Goebbels (R-ID)? They're not paying for it nearly as much the rest of the country. The population of Goebbels district includes a few thousand Aryan nation compound residents.

It could also serve to, say, further undermine the expansion of certain third parties. If a Libertarian gets elected, how high are libertarians from his district going to make his salary?

The point is, it sets up a system where certain Congressmen get more money (and thus influence) based on their constituency, and that's counter to how the system is set up.

Quote :

"As for raising their pay, I really don't think there's a whole lot of a problem with representatives having to go to their constituents and having to justify their pay"

Personally, I'd rather them be doing their job than spending even more time telling us about what a good job they're doing.

Quote :

"I'm sure the costs of doing so will gladly be paid by whatever lobbyist wants to ensure the congressman's vote, just like reelection stuff is now."

Awesome! A system that gives lobbyists even more influence over Congress. I'm sold, where do we start?

12/23/2008 5:43:43 PM

man, i'm thirsty, i sure could use a COLA

12/23/2008 8:48:29 PM