Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2014/04/04/jim-moran-congress-underpaid/">http://onpolitics.usatoday.com...derpaid/</a> He's also clueless
Originally Posted By ecdc Here's why he's right (and this transcends party): It's to the point where the only people who can afford to be in Congress are the already wealthy. So you end up with a Congress full of rich people only worried about their own interests and out of touch. Keep in mind, Congressmen and women have to maintain two households, and most of them are from urban areas. If I told you that you had to have a home in Washington, D.C. and Chicago, would 175,000 suddenly sound like a ton of money? I know, this is one of those low hanging fruit things that seems easy to mock: "Pfft! I wish I made that much a year!" But as much as people love to hate Congress, one way to get a better one might be to pay them more.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance I agree. People always freak over high wages of public figures and CEOs, they don't understand you get what you pay for. That type of job, voting on things that affect everyone in this country, and you don't want to pay them well?
Originally Posted By oc_dean How about these underpaid people: <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://blogs.kansas.com/dining/files/2012/08/waitress.jpg">http://blogs.kansas.com/dining...ress.jpg</a>
Originally Posted By Tikiduck I always thought Congress supplemented their income with sleazy back room deals with wealthy businessmen. If more money would mean less sleaze, I am all for it.
Originally Posted By ecdc Here's the thing: I have no idea if paying Congress more would help. Probably not, without even tighter restrictions around outside influences. So maybe more money isn't the solution. I just don't think knee jerk, "OMG, can you believe those clowns in Congress said this!?!" style responses are addressing the issue. It's easy to hate on Congress (believe me, I do it), but if you want it to change, you have to look for solutions instead of just whining about them. Most CEOs are paid way too much. But Congress is nowhere near making CEO money. And for people with tons of rules around how they can earn and spend money, who have to live part-time in one of the most expensive cities, I'm not convinced they are making that much.
Originally Posted By Tikiduck I wonder if there are educational requirements in Congress as would be the case for a C.E.O. Or can any dumb hick be a member? I think a key issue would be in raising pay, but limiting contribution amounts, but the Supreme Court has seen to it that it will be business as usual, as far as contributions are concerned.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***I wonder if there are educational requirements in Congress as would be the case for a C.E.O.*** There aren't, and there shouldn't be. And even for C.E.O. they aren't "requirements" per-se. If a highly successful shmo started the next Facespace and made billions, I'm quite sure he'd be welcomed with open arms as the C.E.O. of any number of other companies if he should wish to go that route. The only requirements for Senator is that they be a citizen for 9 years prior, at least 30 years of age, and a resident of the state they represent. For the House, it's 25 years old, 7 years a citizen, and a resident of the state they represent (though interestingly, they don't necessarily have to live in the district).
