Lower Salaries

[jimnyc]

Was thinking of US senators in mind, but this should actually apply to all elected officials. In addition to my prior stands on limitations of terms - I'm thinking perhaps they should lower the salaries. Starting a senator at $174,000 is WAY too much in my opinion, and a huge reason as to why they work so hard for votes - it's a good gig and easy money for them. And they think, and apparently 99% of them are - immune to prosecution. :rolleyes:

Give them maybe like $35-40k per year, limit terms to like 10 years maximum. Give them free apartments scattered around. All standard living, your typical one bedroom apartments and 2 if -3 if they have a family. Nothing special about these apartments and no special locations. They cannot "upgrade" via anything in office. The PEOPLE will vote when necessary on appropriate upgrades. Nothing more. Do NOT make this a bonanza for them - they are supposed to want to do this to help, not rip off the people.

[Kathianne]

Was thinking of US senators in mind, but this should actually apply to all elected officials. In addition to my prior stands on limitations of terms - I'm thinking perhaps they should lower the salaries. Starting a senator at $174,000 is WAY too much in my opinion, and a huge reason as to why they work so hard for votes - it's a good gig and easy money for them. And they think, and apparently 99% of them are - immune to prosecution. :rolleyes:

Give them maybe like $35-40k per year, limit terms to like 10 years maximum. Give them free apartments scattered around. All standard living, your typical one bedroom apartments and 2 if -3 if they have a family. Nothing special about these apartments and no special locations. They cannot "upgrade" via anything in office. The PEOPLE will vote when necessary on appropriate upgrades. Nothing more. Do NOT make this a bonanza for them - they are supposed to want to do this to help, not rip off the people.

I disagree, no matter my low opinion of most of the critters. They have to have a place to live in DC and wherever they are from. Only those with sufficient personal wealth, that wanted to either 'serve' or worse and most of them, want to make connections to get richer after their term.

While I find some arguments on term limits to be worthwhile, I also find many against.

[hjmick]

There was a time when they earned a small stipend, did the country's business, then returned home to a regular job...


Now, it's get elected, get money, get power, get more money, get more power, for as long as you can. I am convinced that there is not a single member of the House or Senate that truly gives a flying rhinoceros shit about their constituents. Until it's election time and then it's all glad-handing and lip service.

[Kathianne]

There was a time when they earned a small stipend, did the country's business, then returned home to a regular job...


Now, it's get elected, get money, get power, get more money, get more power, for as long as you can. I am convinced that there is not a single member of the House or Senate that truly gives a flying rhinoceros shit about their constituents. Until it's election time and then it's all glad-handing and lip service.

I hear you. Then again, there was a time that Congress only met periodically and DC was literally an unhealthy swamp. Families did not come, but then again, families were either on the estates or plantations or in Beacon Hill or Hyde Park in the cities.

While I for one would like the 'breaks' they get, it is more than a 40 hour week for most on average.

I do have issues with only the very wealthy being able to serve, which is what it used to be and would be again if the 'stipend' were what Jim suggested.

[Gunny]

I disagree, no matter my low opinion of most of the critters. They have to have a place to live in DC and wherever they are from. Only those with sufficient personal wealth, that wanted to either 'serve' or worse and most of them, want to make connections to get richer after their term.

While I find some arguments on term limits to be worthwhile, I also find many against.I figured I'd come back to this line and agree with it. Since it's what I agree with.

The arguments in either direction work only in a perfect World with honorable people. Congress resembles neither.

[Kathianne]

I figured I'd come back to this line and agree with it. Since it's what I agree with.

The arguments in either direction work only in a perfect World with honorable people. Congress resembles neither.

I do think there are some 'honorable,' though I may not agree with them all or even most of the time. I go with assuming they are, then vote as my eyes tell me to. ;)

[Elessar]

I see the argument on term limits, but if that happens the continuity of running the Congress
would suffer. A 2 month change-over is not enough time to educate such a large body.

President and VP I can see. Legislative and Judicial Branches, not so much.

[Gunny]

I do think there are some 'honorable,' though I may not agree with them all or even most of the time. I go with assuming they are, then vote as my eyes tell me to. ;)They get tossed with the bathwater because no matter how personally honorable some may seem to be, in the end, they're still just there to make an easy buck.

[Kathianne]

They get tossed with the bathwater because no matter how personally honorable some may seem to be, in the end, they're still just there to make an easy buck.


Really? LOL! Show me the numbers of how many are making more in Congress than they did before being elected.