[youtube]http://youtu.be/EflHUPNpW2w[/youtube]
Gosh, I feel so sorry for these guys—can’t make it on $174,000 + perks beyond calculation.
Constitution Daily: “House member makes argument for notable pay raise.”
A House member is taking an unpopular stand, saying Congress should get a pay boost as the nation’s “board of directors.” Does Representative Jim Moran have a point, or does Congress get paid enough?
In a brief interview with CQ Roll Call, the Democrat from Virginia said that, “I think the American people should know that the members of Congress are underpaid. I understand that it’s widely felt that they underperform, but the fact is that this is the board of directors for the largest economic entity in the world.”
Moran said the congressional members also should be entitled to per diem pay in addition to salaries and benefits.
“A lot of members can’t afford to live decently when they are at their jobs in Washington.” Moran said. He complained about the size of some “family units” used by House and Senate members, and said Congress should get per diem pay like states pay to their legislatures.
Tell ya what… I think a better idea is to solve the workload problem. Cut back Congress’ responsibilities to just those things explicitly listed in the Constitution. Delete all departments and cabinet-level positions which are also not Constitutional (Labor, Education, EPA, HHS, etc.) and I bet a bunch of good things will happen:
- Cost-of-living in DC will come down, as the demand for real estate collapses when the parasites leave.
- The nation’s economy experiences a major boom as the tax-load is lessened from having to support all of this non-essential nonsense.
- Many who have supported themselves by stealing from their neighbors through Federal programs will actually have to contribute to society by getting jobs.
Is he sure he wants to describe himself as a member of a “board of directors”? He might find his office Occupied in a manner reminiscent of Zucotti Park (which I had the misfortune of walking by during its Occupation – it was reminiscent of a landfill).
While I think that the EPA is constitutional (but dominated by radical environmentalists, which is the root of its problems since its inception), I do agree with your prescription for improving this nation.
Let me also suggest something that directly addresses the “problem” Mr. Moran is concerned about.
We use secure telecom technology for managing everything from ATMs to ICBMs. Why don’t we get our Congressmen and Senators out of DC, and have them telecommute from their districts/states … turn Congress into a TeleCongress?
Let’s see …
No need to maintain two residences … check.
Travel expenses (for them and/or us) reduced … check.
Improved feedback to/from – and oversight by – their constituents … check.
Making the denizens of K Street work harder to buy influence … check.
Lower cost of living for most … for the rest, valuable feedback regarding the folly of Progressive policy … check.
Reduction of the “Hunger Games” effect, by putting legislators in a position where they have to more closely live with the laws they pass … check.
I don’t see any downsides, as long as the design/execution of the supporting infrastructure is conducted properly – and transparently.
#TeleCongress
I like one comment someone said:
If the politicians in congress were paid what they are worth, they would owe WE THE PEOPLE trillions of dollars. How do I go about getting my money back?
One reason it costs so much to LIVE in washington dc is because of all of the millionaires who live there. A lot of them are politicians who became rich while in office. They aren’t supposed to be LIVING there anyway. They are SUPPOSED to come to dc while congress in is session, then go home to their constituents so the politician can find out what is going on in their state. Don’t states have laws saying how long a person has to live in their state to qualify to be a federal politician? If not, then they should.
@Ritchie The Riveter: #1
You have to take into account that the USA isn’t going to manage the Internet if obama gets his way. He wants the United Nations to run it. You know, that body of countries that is for freedom in all countries. But, wait a minute. Haven’t I heard ambassador after ambassador, and leader of a country after leader of a country, stand at the podium and CONDEMN the USA, and say it should be destroyed, and didn’t those condemnations happen in the general assembly for all of the other countries to hear, and didn’t most of the ambassadors cheer when they heard the condemnations? Maybe letting the UN have control of the Internet isn’t such a good idea. I’m have to think about it for a while.
I’ve thought about it long enough. I vote NO.
@Smorgasbord:
The TeleCongress network does not have to depend upon the Internet. Like our missile-control networks, it can – and should – be totally separate … I’d also recommend that its management be highly transparent, which would be easier if it is a separate network.
.
Of course, we can provide “read-only” streaming portals to the Internet for the rest of us to view debates, along with e-mail boxes and Twitter feeds routed directly to our Congresscritter in real time … perhaps with the latter feeding the bottom-of-the-screen crawl of a real-time display of our Congresscritter at work, so we can know what our neighbors are thinking.
Put ’em in a virtual fishbowl, where we can watch ’em closely.
Most congresscritters deserve a raise….. at the end of a stout rope. 😉
@Ritchie The Riveter: #4
I’m no expert of electronics, or the Internet, but I’m guessing that TeleCongress would have to use the Internet, and whoever regulates the Internet, regulates what it is used for. If the wrong country or countries get control of it, they can keep one person from being able to use it, all the way up to a whole country. obama wanting the UN to regulate it, and the UN being anti-American, that tells me obama wants to control what the USA can do over the Internet. I have no problem with your idea if the USA keeps the Internet.
How can ONE PERSON in the whole USA have the authority to give the Internet away? That should be a congressional thing. It wouldn’t surprise me if obama has a secret auction and sells it to the highest bidder.
@Jim S: #5
That sounds like something a liberal would say.
Seems Jim Moran wants a raise off the backs of taxpayers, in spite of the money he has managed to garner illegally.
Good by, Jim. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.
Representative Jim Moran (D-VA) lies.
No.
As people keep pointing out, the US government is NOT in charge of the US economy.
But the US government (at all levels) IS the 3rd biggest economy on earth….as a consumer!!!
Hillary managed to lose $6 billion in her time as Sec State.
Her Department managed to avoid having any Inspector General during her time in office.
The new Sec State allowed an IG and first thing we learn is how tangled and impossible it is going to be to find all that cash.
Let our Congress do their jobs of CONTROLLING the purse strings…….
They only get paid out of what they save elsewhere.
They can start at the State Department.
They are grossly overpaid as it is.
They vote on legislation they have not read, and in most cases cannot understand.
They have failed to pass a federal budget for 5 of the last 6 years, which is a REQUIREMENT of the federal government under the Constitution.
They are avoiding their constitutional duty of keeping the executive branch in check, and failing to enact proper oversight over the multitude of out-of-control regulatory bodies operating under the executive.
They are absolutely overpaid. They would be fired from any privately owned company for similar horrible job performance. Moran simply shows how out of touch these legislators are, believing themselves to be in an elite class above the average citizen and thus deserving of elite benefits.
Throw such scum out. Term limit them all.
NannyG
You are correct that the government is not in charge of the economy. If it were, I would demand a profit and loss statement each month signed off by every one of the board of directors. And if there is no profit…
And how many times do we have to have to slap little dweebs like Moron with the fact that the state is not society?
Pay them each 2 million per year. And institute a death penalty for corruption. Done right, we’d save trillions.
@DaNang67: #12
I like one brilliant idea of paying them a percentage of the GDP. They would be paid much right now if the rule was in effect. Pay them several million per year, but they pay ALL OF THEIR EXPENSE. They are allowed a certain number of employees paid for by the government, but they pay for EVERYTHING ELSE unless it is official business.
A Political Crimes Tribunal should be set up to go after politicians who commit political crimes. It would be set up just like the War Crimes Tribunal, and there would be no statute of limitations. It would make politicians think twice about committing crimes that they could be prosecuted for many years later.
I read, here I think, a proposal to pay Congress based on bonuses. A million dollars each if the budget is balanced, debt reduced or other predetermined goals met. Paying someone like Reid $174,000 to keep budgets and legislation that might reduce unemployment, cut debt, cut spending and boost the economy doesn’t seem like a good deal for the American taxpayer.
@Bill Burris: #14
The best suggestion I heard for paying congress is to pay them a percentage of the GDP. The better the economy, the more they are paid. We also need to reduce the size of their expense accounts.
So how is it possible for Congress-Critters to become millionaires on $170,000+ a year? Simple, they are the ultimate insider stock traders.
@Ditto: #16
A bill was passed that made it illegal for companies to let congress know what they would be doing. As usual, congress SECRETLY voted the bill out.
What a crock. This man obviously cannot even live within him means – and that is his personal problem, not ours.
The base salary for a member of Congress is $174,000. But all members enjoy access to a separate piggy bank known as their “allowance.” This funding generally goes toward maintaining their offices and building up a legislative entourage. In the House, representatives are allowed to spend more than $900,000 on salaries for up to 18 permanent employees. They get about a quarter-million dollars more for office expenses, including travel, and additional funding for a well-known congressional perk known as “franking.” Franking is the term for the mass constituent mail sent out by members of Congress and paid for courtesy of the taxpayer.
A seat in Congress comes with office space — lots of it. Not only do members move into an office on Capitol Hill, they maintain space in their home districts and states too. For senators, this benefit has a pretty high cap – up to 8,200 square feet. The CRS report said there is “no restriction” on the number of offices they can open in federal buildings in their home states. Plus senators get to shop at the equivalent of Congress’ IKEA — furniture supplied through the Architect of the Capitol. Every senator gets $40,000 — and potentially more — for furniture in their home-state offices.
Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/29/benefits-members-congress-shabby/
-and when I heard about this last year, about politicans using political campaign contributions like their private slush fund, I quit donating.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10/21/the-way-members-of-congress-subsidize-their-lifestyles-with-political-contributions-and-its-all-legal/