Rank-and-file members of Congress get $174,000 per year.

[Ardent15]

<http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congresspay.htm>

And the leaders get even more.

Who here's in favor of cutting Congressional salaries?

[cali]

1. I don't think it matters in the slightest..

[FLDCVADem]

3. Same here n/t

[sandnsea]

6. Symbolically it would matter

They think that's a middle class salary because most of them are so stinking rich. If their salary matched a true median salary, maybe a few of them would wake up when economists say stupid shit like the tax cuts allowed people to afford houses 3x the previous year's value.

[tridim]

2. Love it.. Cap salaries at 2 times their average constituent's salary.

Should work out to about $70,000/year.

[DJ13]

4. I like that idea

That would tie their own economic interests with their constituents, making them less likely to promote outsourcing.

[TCJ70]

22. Better yet, tie it to that national average...

...these people make laws that affect EVERYONE.

[Foo Fighter]

29. How about minimum wage?

Since their job requires them to have a place in DC, that would be provided by the taxpayers. No, not some fancy digs but rather military-style barracks. Hey, if it's good enough for the troops, it should be good enough for Congress. (Maybe have Halliburton build them, faulty wiring and all, so the members of Congress can experience first-hand what it's like to roll the dice every time they take a shower, hoping like hell they won't get electrocuted.)

Of course, since most members of Congress are millionaires, their salary really wouldn't really matter. No doubt they would "pass" on the military barracks and live in luxury apartments so I guess it's all a moot point. Still, it would be nice for them to get minimum wage, even though it would only be a symbolic gesture. Personally, I'd like to see them having to actually LIVE on minimum wage with absolutely no outside support of any kind. See how quickly they'd line up for food stamps. (Gee, I bet cutting funding for food stamps suddenly wouldn't seem like such a good idea.) Oh, and give 'em crappy health care with high premiums and high deductibles. IOW, make them live in the real world for a change. Heh, now that's change I can believe in. ;)

[endless october]

5. they also get public healthcare.

one of the best plans you'll ever see.

[FLDCVADem]

7. Untrue

They get the same healthcare options as every other federal employee, and while the options are decent, they certainly aren't the best plans I've seen. I'm a federal employee, and we use the plan provided by my husband's employer - less expensive and much better.

[endless october]

15. a link

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/congress-health-care-clinic/story?id=8706655

i tend to doubt every federal employee is getting the same perks as congress.

[RC]

24. No they don't.

They are government workers. They get the same choices as any other government employee. They pay for their own health insurance. They can just afford better than most of us.

[endless october]

25. read the ABC link.

they get special treatment that amounts to public healthcare.

"every federal employee" doesn't get that level of care.

[CTD]

8. Let's keep this question really simple...

While the average worker might make, say, $35k in some parts of the country, do we really want our elected representatives to be "average"?

Obama could be a law partner earning over $1M year. But he chose to be a public servant. Most of our elected reps (even the ones we like) are lawyers who could make $300k, $400K, $500k easily in the private sector.

We want public service to attract the best and the brightest. And these folks also have to pay for two houses, one in their home district and one in the very expense DC market.

Asking them to do this on, say, $70k is ridiculous.

[tridim]

10. And asking their constituents to live on $35K (family of four) isn't ridiculous?

Do you think Congress critters are somehow better than the people they are supposed to represent?

[Obamanaut]

12. Then have them stop saying they are in "public service." They

are actually in a career with great perks, good salary, decent retirement, golden opportunities for post career employment, chances for 'power trips (read ego enhancing)' up the wazoo.

But public service. Not really.

And it is a career because we the sheeple continue to vote for the 'name you know.'

[spanone]

9. it's not up to us, it's up to them....you think they are gonna cut their salaries ?

i doubt it.....probably right after they implement term limits

[amandabeech]

11. Remember, most of them have some kind of rental here in DC

near the Capitol or elsewhere that's a quick subway ride or cab ride away.

Even shared diggs around here ain't cheap. Frankly, nothing in a good, close-in neighborhood is cheap.

Not all of them know how to cook or have the time to cook. I've heard that they hit the takeout places with a vengeance.

That starts to add up.

I'd say at least $30,000 keeps one dry, warm (or cool--dc summers are tropical) and fed.

So then most have $140,000 for their families at home and their other items.

That's a good piece of change in some places, but it isn't an extravagant amount in high cost areas.

Many, many Americans would love that salary, but I don't think that it is too much, considering that we want to get good people.

And it's sure as he!! well below what lobbyists and Wall Street types make.

[Hannah Bell]

21. if most of the politicos in dc were earning less, rents (& property values) would drop.

the wealth of residents is in most cases the cause of high prop values & high rents; lots of $$$ bidding up prices.

[FLDCVADem]

23. I highly doubt it

Lowering the salary of 435 people is not going to decrease property values in a metro area like DC.

[Hannah Bell]

26. "politicos" includes the rest of the apparatchiki as well.

[amandabeech]

27. If you mean everyone else who works for the government,

all the government contractors, all the lobbyists,and all the attorneys who represent clients before government agencies, then maybe rents would go down.

But then, you wouldn't have a government.

For anarchists, I guess that would be okay.

[northzax]

28. Yes, let's make sure we can't get anything close

To decent civil servants.

[Hannah Bell]

32. do decent civil servants typically make $200K?

none that i know do.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. Yeah that would guarantee that only the idle rich could afford to serve!

Great idea. We are a nation of pinheads.

Please research cost of living in Washington DC. Then consider that you have to maintain two residences, one in Washington and one wherever it is you represent. Plus you have to travel back and forth, maintain an office, etc.

[whistler162]

14. And while we are at it lets encourage more bribery

of members of Congress!

[ThomWV]

16. How much does it cost to maintain a home in the home state and live in DC too?

[WillowTree]

34. Not to mention the cost to travel back & forth between DC & their districts multiple times/year.

[Gman]

17. Take that Republican crap somewhere else

God, I hate crap like this.

[n2doc]

18. I'm fine with their salaries

What I would like is a total ban on their being hired (or their wives and immediate families getting hired) by any corp that gets money from the Federal Government. Or tax breaks specifically targeted to them. Make it a 10 year ban. And if they don't like it, retire and let someone else do the job. Plenty would.

It would be interesting to see how many would immediately retire if such a ban were to be put in place.

[AlinPA]

19. For some, those brown envelopes that get passed to them under the table in those ritzy DC

restaurants while they eat their $200 dinners supplements their income a lot. So it is a reasonable thought.

[rcrush]

20. They all live off their bribes anyway. They wont care.

[Ghost in the Machine]

30. $14, 500/month... yeah, no wonder they're out of touch with average Americans

I wonder how long any of them would make it on 10% of that salary??

[JackRiddler]

31. Actually, I think they should make a million a year...

but they should be barred from any other income at all until 10 years after they're out of public service.

Utopian, I realize.

Sorry, as far as I'm concerned their salaries are not the problem, and a common diversionary issue for the rubes.

Campaign finance, the influence of money in elections, the enormous sums spent on lobbying, and outright bribery: these are problems. These are what fuck up American politics more than any other factor.

The amount spent on (legally) influencing Congress and electing the members is probably hundreds of times greater than all Congressional salaries combined, and I guess most of it is tax deductible.

The amounts of public funds wasted on corporate welfare, wars and imperialism as a result is THOUSANDS of times greater.

[Alias Dictus Tyrant]

33. Honestly, it isn't that much.

They live in a high cost region. $174k isn't that much of an income.

Shocking as it might be, with the tax load in many locales that doesn't amount to that much. I've made more than that as an *engineer*.

I pretty much have to assume that the requisite lifestyle includes a lot of crap they can't write off. Granted, many people in Congress aren't worth an engineer's wage but still...

[tritsofme]

35. This is a bad argument. If lawmakers are paid meager or token salaries only the rich could afford

to serve in government.

The deck is stacked against the little guy as it is, but cutting salaries isn't the answer.

[Pharlo]

36. Can someone please explain to me why

$ 174,000 a year isn't 'that much considering the high cost of living' for a member of congress, yet their staffs are forced to live on considerably less in the same area?

Personally, I think a base salary tied to the average income of their constituents, the same living arrangements (free) - including food and healthcare - that is available to the military (if they opt out of this arrangement, a set allowance based upon military style barracks living and the member of Congress picks up the balance), free meals while at the Capitol, and a set travel allowance. As long as the travel and living expenses of their DC existence is met and taken care of, there is NO reason the member of congress cannot live off the average wage of his/her constituency.

A set limit on how much ANY candidate can spend on a given campaign - primaries and generals.

And a five or ten year ban on employment with any company or corporation with which the member of Congress had dealings with during his/her tenure (to include family members.)