One of the most frustrating events in government is when the legislature tells the people to be prepared to sacrifice then have that same legislature give itself a raise. Who wouldn't give themselves a raise if given the choice.
While I don't have what I consider to be the one way of determining legislators pay, I'm sure plenty of people would have some suggestions. Here is one possible idea: Legislators receive the same pay as the "average" citizen in the United States. Average should be determined by the median income, not the mean, so that extremely large income earners do not skew what the "average" citizen truly earns.
Legislators must also pay taxes like everyone else and must not be allowed to give themselves tax exemptions.
Legislators cannot accept positions or any other kind of income from a company who has contributed to their campaigns.
Legislators should not receive retirement compensation in any form (other than whatever retirement they've contributed to--not a special package for politicians). Politics should not be a career.
Comments (11)
Congress would never approve of this, so it would have to be an executive decision, as some members have tried this with abysmal results. There could be a citizens evaluation panel that would review not only their own members, but those from all states, as the entirety of congress affects the entire nation. Evaluate their legislation to see if it is centered strictly on their own district or state to see its effect on the nation as a whole as a means of determining a pork ratio. They could as questions like “Why do you believe you deserve a raise?” If they play politics for the sake of politics, rate them downward.
Technically, the legislature CANNOT give the current legislature (themselves) raises, only the next legislature. I believe this is even in the ammendments to the Constitution. But the idea is otherwise sound, because they do give themselves less visible benefits.
I thought I had heard something about that, merveilleux24 (i.e. the current legislature can only give the next legislature a raise). Thank you for confirming. In my mind, it's roughly equivalent to giving oneself a raise since (a) many legislators will be re-elected and (b) many will stay in politics in some manner and will figure that, "If everyone is making sure to give raises whenever possible, then sooner or later, it will benefit me."
Not only should they be required to pay taxes, but all high government officials should be audited annually by the IRS, and a summary statement of compliance or non-compliance should be issued. We would expect the same level of scrutiny for any C-level executive of a corporation, and there is more than simple money at stake: There is the loss of public trust in the idea of government itself. For those who say "Congress would never vote to audit itself" I offer this simple observation: Once the first candidate who runs on the principle of annual audits is elected, all others appear less ethically interested, and once the issue becomes a regular campaign question, all candidates must take a stand.
This can be done. It is not a universal panacea, but it is one concrete, explicit step in the right direction. www.auditcongress.com
We have had too many decades of self-serving lifetime careerist members of Congress (both parties, both chambers) who have been setting their own Pay, Perks, and Pensions (and Pork, Big Time), and who have legalized their own bribery as they accept arm loads of cash from armies of lobbyists, then obediently deliver their votes as purchased.
Excellent points, sprinklv and pete.
Congressional pay is a red herring. The vast majority of money that passes through a congressman's hands is through campaign contributions. The actual payment directly to the congressman is generally insubstantial by comparison. And it is an infinitesimal piece of the pie of money that Washington DC spends. If anything, the government should give congressmen _more_ money to reduce their incentives to take bribes and so on.
What is needed is campaign reform and some regulation of the lobbying industry (for example, when hiring ex-congressmen, or family members of congressmen).
Yeah, it seems unfair that they get to set their own salary. But it simply doesn't matter, it's chump change compared to the real money that moves both inside a congressman's office and inside the capitol building.
a congressperson's pay should be some base level when they enter office. for each year they are in office, their pay would increase or DECREASE relative to the change in the median salary in their district.
this would encourage congress to help the wages for people living in their district and not trade their loyalties or lose site of the people they represent.
Correct me if I am wrong but weren't members of congress originally paid a daily stipend only when in session? Elected offices that only call for part time service should not be treated as careers. They are a civic responsibility, like jury duty, and should be compensated in the same manner.
Average American wage is $43,889. The congressional wage is $174,000 excluding the bountiful perks
Pension benefits that are two to three times more generous than those offered in the private sector for similarly-salaried executives. Taxpayers directly cover at least 80 percent of this costly plan. Congressional pensions are also inflation-protected, a feature that fewer than 1 in 10 private plans offer.
Health and life insurance, approximately 3/4 and 1/3 of whose costs, respectively, are subsidized by taxpayers.
Wheeled perks, including limousines for senior Members, prized parking spaces on Capitol Hill, and choice spots at Washington's two major airports.
Travel to far-flung destinations as well as to home states and districts. Despite recent attempts to toughen gift and travel rules, "junkets" are still readily available prerogatives for many Members.
A wide range of smaller perks that have defied reform efforts, from cut-rate health clubs to fine furnishings.
The franking privilege, which gives lawmakers millions in tax dollars to create a favorable public image. Experts across the political spectrum have labeled the frank as an unfair electioneering tool. In past election cycles, Congressional incumbents have spent as much on franking alone as challengers have spent on their entire campaigns.
An office staff that performs "constituent services" and doles out pork-barrel spending, providing more opportunities for "favors" that can be returned only at election timeExemptions and immunities from tax, pension, and other laws that burden private citizens -- all crafted by lawmakers themselves.
And they don't even read every bill before them as they have stated numerous times.
We live in a democracy, it's time the country behaved with respect for population. The elite class, a small group that has enjoyed specialized laws that only benefit them has broken our democracy and those need to be held to account.
Thank you for the information, sprinklv! I think giving congress the average American wage and eliminating ALL of the perks you mentioned would be the wise course. I would guess that some legislators might try to twist this idea by saying that the people are being "spiteful" (I've heard this rhetoric before), but that's not the point. The point is that we should be eliminating politics as a career so that politicians must function in the real world with the rest of us so that they have a better feel for the real issues Americans face. Frankly, we could be better served now by selecting legislators randomly from the population and setting up a process whereby all issues are presented to the "random" legislature with all arguments for and against getting thoroughly examined and investigated for truthfulness. As a safeguard, human rights would be sacrosanct so that legislators couldn't do harm or show favoritism to any particular group of people.