General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBorowitz Report - Americans Favor Fifteen Dollars an Hour for Congress
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) Americans took to the streets in large numbers on Thursday to show their support for a fifteen-dollar-an-hour wage for members of Congress.
In major cities across the nation, fast-food workers and other service employees held signs, shouted chants, and gave impassioned speeches to demonstrate their conviction that Congress deserves a maximum hourly wage of fifteen dollars.
Members of Congress are people, just like you and me, Tracy Klugian, a McDonalds employee who took part in the Washington protest, said. They should be paid what they deserve.
Assuming that they continue to take off approximately two hundred and forty days a year, members of Congress earning the proposed maximum would see their average annual income adjusted from a hundred and seventy-four thousand dollars to thirteen thousand five hundred dollars, a salary that many marchers called fair and equitable.
I know what members of Congress will say: I cant live on that, Harland Dorrinson, a protester in Chicago, said. Well, if they want to earn more, they should go out and acquire some skills.
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/americans-favor-fifteen-dollars-an-hour-for-congress?mbid=nl_041615_Borowitz&cndid=25394153&mbid=nl_041615_Borowitz&CNDID=25394153&spMailingID=7670291&spUserID=MzM2OTE2NTg3MTcS1&spJobID=661569193&spReportId=NjYxNTY5MTkzS0
MADem
(135,425 posts)The irony is, they work so little they'd never make a forty hour week....they'd be eligible for welfare, food stamps, etc.
Bet they'd take a new view of the "Welfare State" if they had to live on that salary....
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)dumbcat
(2,120 posts)They should perform their task of representing their constituents as a public service.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)eppur_se_muova
(36,263 posts)One reason the Texas legislature has always been so corrupt is that the anti-government founding fathers of Texas chose that approach. It meant that only the independently wealthy could afford to enter the Lege -- and that meant mostly cotton plantation owners and big cattle ranchers (at the time), with no representation of the poor former Mexicans who made up much of the state's population. If you set out to deliberately plan a system to keep the privileged in power, you couldn't come up with anything more effective. And that was the point.
Try reading Robert Caro's bio of LBJ, particularly vol. 1, "The Path to Power", which describes Johnson's boyhood years through his start in Texas politics. His father was a member of the Lege but not wealthy, and not amenable to bribery -- the usual formula was "beef, bourbon, and blondes", provided by influence-peddlers who wanted legislation that benefited their interests -- and he suffered for it, eventually going bankrupt and losing his farm. He could have avoided impoverishing his family if only he had been open to a little corruption, and LBJ evidently considered him a fool for sticking to his ideals. Not averse to a little corruption himself, LBJ became a millionaire through several businesses whose real ownership was hidden from public scrutiny.
No, starving the watchdogs doesn't work.
dumbcat
(2,120 posts)is going to change that? The watchdogs will be satisfied and reject bribes for that?
niyad
(113,323 posts)goes to each constituent in their districts, with the senators each being responsible for half the population of their states.
justhanginon
(3,290 posts)they could get a second job like so many of their constituents have to do. I understand Wal-Mart hires a lot of part time workers. Pays not great but thankfully you can get health insurance through ACA if you lose your seat in Congress.
Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)I know this is an unpopular opinion, but I've thought it through after saying so here before and getting panned for it, and I'm standing my ground on this unpopular opinion.
I hate them as much as anyone, believe me.
I favor paying them literally millions a year. The legislation authorizing the pay raise needs to also contain strict regulations forbidding them from profiting in any way from their service, while they are in office and after they leave office.
It's an extremely important job, they should be paid accordingly. They're getting paid, just not by us. Who do we think they work for? The people who pay them.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)I thought the minimum wage was $7.25?
If anyone deserves a minimum wage, Congress would be them.