Also low compensation makes it nearly impossible for the average person to run an office, live in DC, and maintain a home in their home district.
I’d be okay if they recieved some kind of voucher or stipend that can only be used on a lease in DC and office necessities. Just to make up the difference
Just build dorms for Congress. There are only around 540 of them, including the non-voting members from PR and DC.
You could make a very nice apartment building for Congress for less than we spend on a lot of other shit. Remove all the extra costs for maintaining two residencies. Travel is already an extra stipend. So is food.
The biggest argument against it is they need to maintain 2 residences and travel back and forth from their district to DC. If they’re not paid enough to do that, only the wealthy and corrupt could ever be in congress.
But the usual rational response is, if what they earn is never enough for the blind pursuit of more, than they will always, “make less” in their minds and justify abuse of their positions.
So you set the congressional pay at a high level, and ban all other sources of income. Any securities must be placed in a blind trust for the duration of service.
“High level” is the problem. It’s a subjective number. You’re going in wrong direction. Make it an objectively low number, maybe average full time salary in their state with potential to hit performance bonuses based on a number of measurable things that help their constituents.
Their pay needs to be linked to their performance in office and yes, a separate matter, but there needs to be tight regulation (and oversight with enforcement) for monitoring their wealth before, during and for a period after serving in office.
I think it’s more to do with influence. They gain the favor of a large business with access to basically infinite money which gives them a whole lot more power behind them
They can have a retirement plan, like anyone else. There needs to be a federal law (or amendment) requiring any elected or politically appointed individual to put assets into a blind trust. And they can’t just name their kid(s) as temporary custodians of their assets. Any assets you owned the 2-years prior to running are placed in a trust unless they were sold to a third party.
Nope, ETFs are too flexible for them. Only indexed mutual funds for members of Congress. Can’t have them selling off their ETFs before a committee meeting is over and the information isn’t public.
That was going to be my first comment, but really, will politicians hold tech companies responsible for example if they know that giving real fines and not token ones leads directly to a drop?
I know you are right, that is what they claim. Having said that, 25 years of naked corruption should be enough, even for Americans, to realize they have been lied to
Or even if you take the bribery angle out of it, the less politicians earn, the less it incentivizes working class people from going into government because they need the money. The net result is you end up ruled by the wealthy (including those who will advocate for pay decreases for congresspeople, which just worsens the problem).
Or that you just make politics into something only for the independently wealthy. This is especially true at the state and local level where positions are often part time. The result is often those with the power to make their own schedules (landlords, lawyers, trust fund kids, etc.) make up a disproportionate amount of elected officials. You’ll get some people who are passionate enough to give up the rest of their lives, but not enough.
The usual argument against this is that the less politicians earn, the easier they are to bribe.
Also low compensation makes it nearly impossible for the average person to run an office, live in DC, and maintain a home in their home district.
I’d be okay if they recieved some kind of voucher or stipend that can only be used on a lease in DC and office necessities. Just to make up the difference
Just build dorms for Congress. There are only around 540 of them, including the non-voting members from PR and DC.
You could make a very nice apartment building for Congress for less than we spend on a lot of other shit. Remove all the extra costs for maintaining two residencies. Travel is already an extra stipend. So is food.
Yeah, but they’re already being bribed at this point.
The solution?
Prison for bribes. No parole. Enforce it.
The biggest argument against it is they need to maintain 2 residences and travel back and forth from their district to DC. If they’re not paid enough to do that, only the wealthy and corrupt could ever be in congress.
But the usual rational response is, if what they earn is never enough for the blind pursuit of more, than they will always, “make less” in their minds and justify abuse of their positions.
This city needs an enema…
So you set the congressional pay at a high level, and ban all other sources of income. Any securities must be placed in a blind trust for the duration of service.
“High level” is the problem. It’s a subjective number. You’re going in wrong direction. Make it an objectively low number, maybe average full time salary in their state with potential to hit performance bonuses based on a number of measurable things that help their constituents.
Their pay needs to be linked to their performance in office and yes, a separate matter, but there needs to be tight regulation (and oversight with enforcement) for monitoring their wealth before, during and for a period after serving in office.
My argument is, what am I supposed to be entertained by, if the number of USian political posts is brought down to zero?
That’s what the FBI and clearance is for
Politicians will be happy to take bribes regardless of what they earn.
Which is why taking away their salary punishes honest politicians more than corrupt ones.
At least until campaign finance is fixed. Citizens United has fully instituted political bribery as a matter of course
I’ll never get over how cheap it is to buy politicians. They make so much money, then they can be made to vote for a genocide for $3000.
It’s not just about how much they get, it’s also about how much their opponents don’t get.
I think it’s more to do with influence. They gain the favor of a large business with access to basically infinite money which gives them a whole lot more power behind them
See Exhibit A: Trump
As an intermediate solution, you can define it as X times the median or the minimum legal wage, so they still have incentive to raise them.
This is the way, and they aren’t allowed to buy any stocks, only ETF’s
They can have a retirement plan, like anyone else. There needs to be a federal law (or amendment) requiring any elected or politically appointed individual to put assets into a blind trust. And they can’t just name their kid(s) as temporary custodians of their assets. Any assets you owned the 2-years prior to running are placed in a trust unless they were sold to a third party.
Nope, ETFs are too flexible for them. Only indexed mutual funds for members of Congress. Can’t have them selling off their ETFs before a committee meeting is over and the information isn’t public.
I say they should only be allowed Thrift Savings Plan funds.
As retired Navy, I 100% feel this comment in my soul. Thanks!!
I wouldn’t even let them have that. They are there to help the population, not the economy (corporations).
Any hard measures comes with a drop of their personal wealth the moment they are investing.
Index funds should be fine then, even Bernie Sanders has Index funds. Smart people will want to invest.
That was going to be my first comment, but really, will politicians hold tech companies responsible for example if they know that giving real fines and not token ones leads directly to a drop?
I know you are right, that is what they claim. Having said that, 25 years of naked corruption should be enough, even for Americans, to realize they have been lied to
Or even if you take the bribery angle out of it, the less politicians earn, the less it incentivizes working class people from going into government because they need the money. The net result is you end up ruled by the wealthy (including those who will advocate for pay decreases for congresspeople, which just worsens the problem).
How is that different from now?
It’s not, which is why it’s not a valid solution.
Or that you just make politics into something only for the independently wealthy. This is especially true at the state and local level where positions are often part time. The result is often those with the power to make their own schedules (landlords, lawyers, trust fund kids, etc.) make up a disproportionate amount of elected officials. You’ll get some people who are passionate enough to give up the rest of their lives, but not enough.