Congress is overpaid

[airdvr 210]

$174,000 per year +bennies?

I say that's way too much.

Quote

Senate Leadership
Majority Party Leader - $193,400
Minority Party Leader - $193,400

House Leadership
Speaker of the House - $223,500
Majority Leader - $193,400
Minority Leader - $193,400


Members elected since 1984 are covered by the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS). Those elected prior to 1984 were covered by the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). In 1984 all members were given the option of remaining with CSRS or switching to FERS.

As it is for all other federal employees, congressional retirement is funded through taxes and the participants' contributions. Members of Congress under FERS contribute 1.3 percent of their salary into the FERS retirement plan and pay 6.2 percent of their salary in Social Security taxes.

Members of Congress are not eligible for a pension until they reach the age of 50, but only if they've completed 20 years of service. Members are eligible at any age after completing 25 years of service or after they reach the age of 62. Please also note that Members of Congress have to serve at least 5 years to even receive a pension.

The amount of a congressperson's pension depends on the years of service and the average of the highest 3 years of his or her salary. By law, the starting amount of a Member's retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary.

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

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[rehmwa 2]

supply and demand don't work here when it's a government defined job

I'd bet we could offer to pay nothing and most of these people will still want the job

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,121]

>I'd bet we could offer to pay nothing and most of these people will still
>want the job

The original idea behind Congressional representatives was that successful and well-respected citizens would take a few years off their jobs to serve in the government, then return to those jobs when their time in office was through. We have gotten very, very far from that, with professional politicians using very well-funded campaigns to amass power and votes. I'd much prefer to return to the original concept of citizen-politicians. To do that, the government has to pay them about what they would make in their private lives, so that they can afford to make the switch.

[airdvr 210]

I'm with you until the last line. Are you saying 174K isn't enough to make them want to switch?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>I'd much prefer to return to the original concept of citizen-politicians. To do that, the government has to pay them about what they would make in their private lives.

I'd agree. I also like the idea of the "reluctant service" - the citizens recruit talented, successful people and convince them to serve - they wouldn't want to, because they are successful and happy already, but they can be convinced because they are willing to do their duty.

term limits would go along way to achieve both goals

the point I'm making that most would still want the job for nothing is about the flaw of the current system that politicians don't do it for duty, they do it for the power

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,121]

>I'm with you until the last line. Are you saying 174K isn't enough to make
>them want to switch?

No, sorry, I think $174K is definitely enough. I was replying to rehmwa's suggestion of paying them nothing. (I think he's right in that we'd still get people who would want the job - but I don't think we'd want _them._)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>(I think he's right in that we'd still get people who would want the job - but I don't think we'd want _them._)

that was the point

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[likearock 2]

Quote

I'm with you until the last line. Are you saying 174K isn't enough to make them want to switch?

Another justification for higher congressional salaries is to try and make it less likely for corruption to develop. Clearly some will turn out crooked no matter what, but you can make the argument that, generally speaking, someone making $200K would be less likely to look for bribes than someone making $50K.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

you can make the argument that, generally speaking, someone making $200K would be less likely to look for bribes than someone making $50K.

you can make the argument......

I'd make the argument that the access to power and the character of the individual play so much more that the salary level really doesn't matter at all

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,121]

>I'd make the argument that the access to power and the character of the
>individual play so much more that the salary level really doesn't matter at all.

Unfortunately, often the people who really, really want that access to power are also the people who do not have the character to use it.

In many cases, you really want the politician who does not want to _be_ a politician. To him, access to power is not much of an incentive, because he won't use it for personal gain. The money is not much of an incentive because he's smart enough to be making far more than that in the private sector. The prestige isn't that important because he won't rely on it for campaign contributions and largesse. And the fame isn't important because he prefers the fame that comes from success, not popularity.

And the job itself? Arguing with other politicians and getting almost nothing done.

So the problem is - how do you attract such people to public service, a thankless job in which around half the country is guaranteed to take issue with everything you say and do, and at best you can make sure the country doesn't get any worse?

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

you can make the argument that, generally speaking, someone making $200K would be less likely to look for bribes than someone making $50K.

you can make the argument......

I'd make the argument that the access to power and the character of the individual play so much more that the salary level really doesn't matter at all

That's fine - but at the end of the day they're both pretty much subjective arguments unless you can back them up with some kind of evidence.

People go into politics for a number of different reasons - I'd be willing to agree that power and money are two of the leading factors.

[airdvr 210]

I'm going to say it's more for power. Take a look at this... http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.php

Estimated net worth of congresspersons. Latest year is 2008. No way is it for the salary. But take a look at the $$ spent on lobbying efforts.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

So the problem is - how do you attract such people to public service, a thankless job in which around half the country is guaranteed to take issue with everything you say and do, and at best you can make sure the country doesn't get any worse?

you start by making sure that there is a rotation in congress that ensures someone brings in donuts or bagels every Friday morning

I pointed out the concept of 'reluctant service'. Seems we are on the same page. Perhaps service of this type would be more effective if we took up a "jury duty" model instead. Set up a minimum (IQ, education, success in current field, etc) set of criteria for serving in congress, or at least for being put up for vote - and then everyone has to be in the pool to sit in the hot seat for a term.....

now the easy part - who establishes the criteria?

Campaigns would be fun - "Vote for the OTHER GUY - I don't want it"

"My opponent is not too bad, we used to play golf together"

"Don't vote for __________, we need him to run the factory"

"Vote for me, I'm bored at banking"

etc

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Southern_Man 0]

Regardless of the salary, the job is worth a good bit of money. Many of these same congressman go on to lobbying positions (lobbying their former colleagues) and making major money by trading on their connections. Even term limits will do nothing to stop this system.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Amazon 7]

You do realize that these are executive positions in the corporation that is the USA.

Based on Executive Salaries and bonus payouts to executives in the private sector.. they are vastly underpaid.

I know that does not play well to those on Main Street but 6 figure salaries are certainly not uncommon for most business management I know of.

Oh.. and even with the number of congresscritters... its a freaking drop in the bucket compared to the waste in procurement for the military and its contractors alone.

[likearock 2]

Quote

I'm going to say it's more for power. Take a look at this... http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.php

Estimated net worth of congresspersons. Latest year is 2008. No way is it for the salary. But take a look at the $$ spent on lobbying efforts.

I definitely agree that it's probably more weighted towards power. But I wouldn't discount money completely - try looking at net worth in the House but sorted by poorest first.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

>I'd bet we could offer to pay nothing and most of these people will still
>want the job

The original idea behind Congressional representatives was that successful and well-respected citizens would take a few years off their jobs to serve in the government, then return to those jobs when their time in office was through. We have gotten very, very far from that, with professional politicians using very well-funded campaigns to amass power and votes. I'd much prefer to return to the original concept of citizen-politicians. To do that, the government has to pay them about what they would make in their private lives, so that they can afford to make the switch.

That is because the hen house is being guarded by the wolves.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

>I'm with you until the last line. Are you saying 174K isn't enough to make
>them want to switch?

No, sorry, I think $174K is definitely enough. I was replying to rehmwa's suggestion of paying them nothing. (I think he's right in that we'd still get people who would want the job - but I don't think we'd want _them._)

I have always felt a politician's total net income should not exceed that of the average net income of the district or state they represent. The President's and VP's should be limited to the average of the nation. If they are good at their job they will make a small fortune on the talk circuit and in book sales after leaving office.
The only problem is in enforcing it.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

I have always felt a politician's total net income should not exceed that of the average net income of the district or state they represent. The President's and VP's should be limited to the average of the nation. If they are good at their job they will make a small fortune on the talk circuit and in book sales after leaving office.
The only problem is in enforcing it.

All preidents and VPs make a small fortune in book sales and the talk circuit whether they are good at it or not. Not all the legislators do, but many of them go on to lucrative careers either as lobbyists or consultants (e.g. for defense contractors bidding on Pentagon contracts.) Honestly, the value of the office is much, much higher than the salary they receive while they are in office.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

term limits would go along way to achieve both goals

term limits cause all sorts of problems too. I see it as the primary cause of California's problems, due to the way it's implemented. Most are limited to two terms in a given office. So they are constantly rotating about. And because you've taken away their incumbency advantage, they are now unwilling to compromise on a single thing, no matter what the state's best interests are. You need to limit their TOTAL time working for the government, if you really think it's best to have a bunch of rookies running our nation. Personally, I don't.

As for the 174k - that's worth a lot more in Delaware than it is in San Francisco. And if you're expecting them to travel back and forth from their home district, I'd rather make that money here, with a 4 mile commute. Put more bluntly, that salary buys you a small condo in a mid tier part of town. Not exactly living the big life. So it will still encourage bad behavior with lobbyists.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

>I'm with you until the last line. Are you saying 174K isn't enough to make
>them want to switch?

No, sorry, I think $174K is definitely enough. I was replying to rehmwa's suggestion of paying them nothing. (I think he's right in that we'd still get people who would want the job - but I don't think we'd want _them._)

I have always felt a politician's total net income should not exceed that of the average net income of the district or state they represent. The President's and VP's should be limited to the average of the nation. If they are good at their job they will make a small fortune on the talk circuit and in book sales after leaving office.
The only problem is in enforcing it.

So does this mean that the quality of people who run the country should be at the 50th percentile of our society, in terms of skill and education? Sounds ugly, esp with the high school graduation rate in the low 70s.

I would expect corporations to hire a CEO with abilities a bit higher than the average for the company as well.

[billvon 3,121]

>The President's and VP's should be limited to the average of the nation.

That perpetuates the myth that the president is responsible for the economy - and that's a very foolish myth to perpetuate.

It is not the job of the government to make sure that people make lots of money. That's the job of the people. The government's only role is to set up a framework of regulation so that companies can compete on an equal footing, employees are not abused or trapped by fraudulent contracts etc. If they do that, they've done their jobs.

Let's assume your approach - that government officials do better if average salaries go up. Best approach for them - spend spend spend! Tons of government contracts. That drives up salaries. Lots of purchasing via US companies. That drives up stock prices, inspires companies to hire new employees, and increase their base pay to retain their workers as others try to hire them away.

And the minimum wage? Increase it to $30 an hour! Immediate and dramatic increase in politician's pay. Sure, it will cause massive problems in the long run - but by that time they'll be long gone with their winnings.

So no, I wouldn't be in favor of rewarding the president for growing the average wage. I _would_ be in favor of paying elected officials a wage that helps ensure they are not unusually vulnerable to financial blackmail, though.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

I would expect corporations to hire a CEO with abilities a bit higher than the average for the company as well.

and to use your own analogy, it also would make sense for a CEO to receive compensation based, at least in part, on the performance of the company they were in charge of.

--
Rob

[airdvr 210]

If that's what the government is supposed to be doing they've overstepped their bounds a bit.

Median Income US - $52,029
Average annual salary for full-time federal government jobs now exceeds $79,197.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[billvon 3,121]

>If that's what the government is supposed to be doing they've
>overstepped their bounds a bit.

While I agree, it's what people want. They want the economy fixed and they want it fixed RIGHT NOW. Thus whichever politician promises a more rapid fix gets their vote - and then the people expect them to deliver on their promises.