What if Congress was paid based on how much their constituents made?

[ck4829]

They're supposed to represent us, yet they receive more than 4 times the income the typical American individual makes in a year.

What if Representatives were paid based on how much the people in their district makes?
What if Senators were paid based on how much the people in their States make?
What if the Speaker of the House and the President were paid based on how much the people all over the US make?

None of them would see an increase in pay, and actually, all of their pay would be slashed. Severely.

We've been asked to make sacrifices, public workers take hit after hit, and many social programs haven't been adjusted for inflation since the 70's; and yet here is one group that is not only living comfortably, but they can also vote themselves a raise.

Maybe things would be different if the Congress and the Administration had an actual incentive to improve the lives and welfare of the average American, if only there was some sort of pledge that they could take to have the pay that is over the median income of their district, State, or the average American withheld by the government.

[yurbud]

1. I think we should go the other way: pay them more than they could ever hope to make

working as lobbyists, CEOs, or highly-paid, do-nothing board members but NEVER allow them to take those jobs when they leave office, and if they do, not only take away their pensions, but make them give back any salary and expensing they collected in office, and then send them to prison.

[JVS]

84. I think that they should be paid the same as now but exiled to a prison colony after their terms.

That way the only thing they have to work for is their legacy.

[SDuderstadt]

2. So then...

why would anyone want to represent districts that are structurally poor, like, say, Appalachia?

Really poor reasoning and a truly bad idea.

[ck4829]

3. So then...

Our representatives shouldn't represent us?

[SDuderstadt]

7. Ask the OP...

it's their poor reasoning and truly bad idea.

[Little Star]

14. I disagree that its poor reasoning and a bad idea.....

They are not called public servants for nothing. It is not good to have them getting to comfortable in their personal bank account off the backs of the tax payers. It should be a calling to sacrifice and higher service of their constituents. imho

[SDuderstadt]

15. The OP is about members of Congress being paid..

upon the basis of what their constituents make, not how much members of Congress get paid in general.

Re-read what I actually wrote, then explain your poor reasoning, in addition to that of the OP.

[Little Star]

17. They make careers out of what should be

public service and they also make connections to lobbyists in the process. They use their "public" service in a "self" serving manner and that is the problem. I agree with the OP. Have a nice day.

[SDuderstadt]

19. Again, the OP is about...

members of Congress being paid based upon upon what their constituents make, which is a truly bad idea, for the reasons that most here have noted. No one is necessarily disagreeing with your general assessment of Congress. It just isn't what the OP is about and it sure as hell is not what my post was about.

[Little Star]

18. The OP is Makes a valid point.

[SDuderstadt]

20. What, specifically...

do you think the point of the OP is? How would paying members of Congress based upon what their constituents make remedy/address it.

[Little Star]

21. It might just keep away some who are in public service for...

their own gain instead of service.

[SDuderstadt]

22. Are you INTENTIONALLY missung the point?

Look at any nationwide graph of income levels, then answer a VERY simple question:

If members of Congress were paid on the basis of what their constituents make, why would anyone want to represent Appalachia? Essentially what you are saying is it is not as important to represent Appalachia as it is to represent Manhattan.

[Little Star]

24. I think there are plenty of people who would want to represent..

Appalachia for the good of Appalachia. They just don't have the $$ to compete for the job because the monied (sp?), greedy, self serving see it as a betterment for themselves. I missed nothing about your point. You should talk about missing the point.

[SDuderstadt]

25. Okay...

let's say that according to the subject line of the OP, a member of Congress from Appalachia made, say, 1/4 what someone representing Manhattan does. Two questions:

1. How could the Representative from Appalachia even afford to do the job and

2. How would it be fair to the people of Appalachia to pay their Representative 1/4 of that paid to the people in Manhattan?

You are seriously not thinking this through.

[Little Star]

26. Now there you may have a point. However...

we need to face the fact that pretty near all of them are in it for the financial betterment of themselves. They could give a crap about us.

Instead of just railing against the OP it might have been helpful to acknowledge we have a problem with them and their greed.

We also have the problem that because they have enough $$ and clout to get elected it denies us the possibility of electing others who may genuinely want to do public service for the people.

Will you at least acknowledge the reality of our plight?

[SDuderstadt]

33. I already did that...

the OP does nothing to remedy that plight.

[MedicalAdmin]

55. Hmmmm. interesting.

How about this. What if all members of congress were paid the national median income with a nice benefit package and all related expenses covered such as travel, lodging, food etc.


That way they all get paid the same and they all have an incentive to make sure that EVERYONE does well.

[MedicalAdmin]

54. An appalachian would want to because they would make

median income for where they live. Would someone from Manhattan want to rep them, no. But then again they wouldn't be able to. If the benefit package included travel, food and lodging in DC as well as generous benefits I think a lot of Appalachians would take up the challenge gladly.

Your assumption that the only motivating factor would be personal gain is rather, um, libertarian.

[SDuderstadt]

56. Libertarian?

Your assumption that I remotely believe their only motivation would be financial gain is pretty strawmanish.

My idea of a libertarian is someone who bums a ride to NYC with you, then refuses to chip in for gas because "you were already going there anyway".

I'd greatly appreciate your refraining from backhanded smears.

[MedicalAdmin]

58. 10-4 -- it wasn't my best moment.

My apologies.

Libertarian smear aside, what do you think about my premise?

[SDuderstadt]

61. I think the compensation...

differential makes it a non-starter.

[MedicalAdmin]

67. Why do you find it a non starter?

What if the compensation was linked to the national median or if associated costs of holding office (rent, food, transit, etc) was a covered benefit. In other words, if the compensation was reasonable as if they still lived and worked in their home districts because cost wise it would be pretty much the same?

It seems that you are assuming that the amount of compensation is the only factor that goes into running. Given that currently it costs more to run for office than you could get in compensation in any way shape or form, that this premise is a "non starter."

Thanks in advance for your time.

[SDuderstadt]

71. Now you've changed the premise from...

the median income from the area in which they live to the "national median income", so it's slightly better but you fail to explain how it would be "linked" to this number.

In the meantime, we already have a way to make sure that members of congress work in their constituents' best interests. It's called an "election".

I like my idea better.

[MedicalAdmin]

72. One dollar - one vote?

I'll answer your question despite you not bothering to answer mine. I asked you to comment on MY premise and not the OP. I guess I wasn't as clear about that as I could have been...

Take the median national income and pay them that amount. And if that means that we get the best and brightest from the sticks and only attract working class stiffs from the big urban areas due to the pay scale, then I don't see a downside. At least the poor and middle class would have a seat at the table. As it sits now it is really a system of one dollar = one vote. Money = electability. That plutocracy. Are you honestly saying that the current system is focussed on constituents needs (assuming votes and NOT donators)?

How is pay scale NOT connected to elections? Did I say, don't elect anyone?

You can like your idea - I'll stick to reform and improvement.

[SDuderstadt]

75. Great...

When you have viable ideas, let me know.

[MedicalAdmin]

93. You sir, have all the diplomatic skills of a piranha.

Good day.

[NoPasaran]

32. "They are not called public servants for nothing"

Next time you see your congressman, try getting him to wash your car

[MadHound]

35. Well, in the beginning, public service wasn't about the money,

It was about public service. In fact Washington and several other Founding Fathers felt so strongly about this that they received no pay for their public service.

[SDuderstadt]

37. You realize that under that kind of scenario...

only wealthy people could afford to serve in Congress, right?

[MadHound]

44. And that's different from what we have now how, exactly?

Have you checked the number of millionaires in Congress lately? Even if they don't have millions, they are comfortably well off.

[SDuderstadt]

46. Yeah...

it's 261. How many members of congress have working spouses?

[JackRiddler]

91. Sounds like you would have arrested Jonathan Swift for solicitation to cannibalism.

Your subtle sense of humor and distress over "bad ideas" are noted.

[SDuderstadt]

92. Dude...

Using the thinking in the OP, why would anyone want to represent a poor district and make substantially less than their peers?

Oh, and thanks so much for the silly strawman about Jonathan Swift.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. The theory for the pay goes back

to the time when it was NOT a career and was supposed to compensate people for the time lost in traveling back and forth, horse and buggy... for upwards of six years. Early on people served no more than three terms for the House, average. And Senators did one term, two when they were really begged by their Governors. It wasn't seen as a way to make a living. Oh and Presidents, to this day, that is truly the last job they will have (in theory)

Alas that is obsolete, and people are doing this as lifetime careers, so having them make what we all make on average... my rep would do better, she'd be making 45K, but Filner to the south, would be making closer to the mid 30 thousand.

It would keep people like a few republicans around hiere, out of office though... no way to get rich.

[SDuderstadt]

9. Wrong, as usual...

William Howard Taft went on to become Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_US_President_later_became_Chief_Justice_of_the_Supreme_Court

[SDuderstadt]

12. In fact...

totally wrong:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0768854.html

[Freddie Stubbs]

5. So, a Congressman representing an affluent district should make more money than one who represents a

poor one?

[global1]

6. But Could It Incentivise The Congressmen Of Poor Districts To.....

raise the compensation in their district? Could it lead to the Congressman to really care about their constituency and do everything in their power to elevate it?

[SDuderstadt]

8. So, could a constituent in Appalachia...

possibly hope to make as much as someone in Manhattan?

Like I said before, really poor reasoning and a truly bad idea.

[global1]

57. Why Not? ...nt

[SDuderstadt]

63. You don't seem to know much about...

economic demographics.

[global1]

64. Maybe A Good Congressman Could Do Something About C hanging The Demographics....

he/she would have an incentive to do it.

[SDuderstadt]

65. And, how, pray tell...

would they do that? Do you understand that your post makes absolutely NO sense?

Maybe we could get some of the Fortune 500 to Appalachia. to relocate to I'm all ears.

[global1]

66. Well One Thing We've Established......

I wouldn't want you to be my Congressman if I lived in Appalachia - not creative enough.

Let's see - maybe one might find that the soil in Appalachia is such that if grapes grown in it - it would produce the worlds best wines. Appalachia becomes the new Napa/Sonoma and new vinters spring up in the area and all sorts of re-development occurs. Appalachia then becomes a much sought after tourist destination and all sorts of 5 star hotels and restaurants open that further lure more and more tourists to the area. As it becomes more popular - country western stars begin to open up entertainment venues and it becomes more popular than Branson. Then movie stars begin buying land in the area and move there and develop large ranches and mansions. They like it because it offers both beauty and anonymity. Then seeing that all these movie stars live there - new movie studios begin to open up. The movie business flourishes. Soon Appalachia's median income takes it to the top of the list of communities in the U.S. to live. Wow - now the Congressman is earning more than his counterparts in Manhattan and L.A. Then lo and behold - oil if found in the region and it turns out that there is more oil under Appalachia than in all the Middle East.....

Should I go on?

[SDuderstadt]

69. No...

you shouldn't go on.

There is a huge gulf between "creativity" and "plausibility" here. If you can't see how your idea is unworkable, this hypothetical conversation is pointless.

[SDuderstadt]

78. Do you honestly not see...

what is wrong with your idea?

Hint: what does a member of Congress have to do with the quality of soil in their district?

I'll take rational thinking over "creativity" any day.

[global1]

86. Please Read The Book "How To Re-Imagine The World"......

a pocket guide for practical visionaries by Anthony Weston.

In it he says the following:

- Real movement begins with vision - with inspiration and engagement, with a pull and not a push.

- To formulate truly new ideas we need to undertake new styles of generative thinking.

- Exaggerate, extrapolate, push beyond incremental changes to qualitative shifts.

- For rougher provocation, deliberately rearrange and transpose ideas. Reverse expected relationships, think opposites.

- Sustained creative thinking takes many steps. Keep pushing to the next one; interject new associations, provoke ideas to morph and morph again.

- New kinds of communities, new governments, new kinds of art and new ways to live - none of this needs permission or consensus. We can practice do-it-yourself social change, right now.

- Go for broke - Imagine not just two steps down the road, but all the way. Why not?

Sure the idea that the original poster came up with might not be the best or most workable - but it was an idea and a different way of looking at things and perhaps accomplishing more.

Don't knock the idea. Embrace it and see what can be done to reshape it into something that might be workable and beneficial. So that is why I encouraged the idea and took it to the degree that I did.

[SDuderstadt]

87. You didn't answer my question

I APPLAUD imagination and vision, so please don't try to make this seem to be about your perception of me.

Using YOUR example, again, what did the member of congress have to do with the inherent quality of soil in the district? Your approach totally ignores the issue of compensation equity. Do you really think a member of congress from a poor district works substantially less??

As I have stated repeatedly, this idea reflects poor thinking processes and results in a truly bad idea. Pleaded stop lecturing me on "imagination".

[global1]

88. As You Should Stop Badgering Me About Soil In The District......

The point I'm trying to make is instead of you criticizing everything and everybody on this thread - why don't you add to the conversation by trying to be constructive and come up with how you might handle the situation that the original poster was trying to address.

Instead of being confrontational - why don't you try and be constructive. Or are you afraid someone like yourself would take down your ideas?

Again read this book. It talks to people - ordinary people - like me and I think you - and how we can work together to begin to re-envision the world in unexpected and dramatic off the chart ways. Get off and out of your box.

[SDuderstadt]

89. I have a book for you to read...

It's called "How We Know What Isn't So", by Thomas Gilovich.

"Get off and out of your box"

LOL. I already pointed to a fatal flaw in your argument. And, you won't answer.my questions because it tanks your argument. Trying to improve our nation's financial well-being by paying some members of congress dramatically less than others for things that are totally out of the control of the member of congress is a truly bad idea on numerous levels.

[Bluenorthwest]

74. On Appalachia, New York City, and Poor Congressional Districts

I'm reading this thread after the fact, and this is off topic in a way, but I keep reading about Appalachia and New York City as these stark opposites.
The poorest district in the US, per 2010 census, is located in New York City, NY-16, the Bronx. Median household income 19,311.
2. Kentucky-5-Median 21,195
3. West Virgina-03-Median 25, 630

Then another surprise at number 4.
4. California-41, Los Angeles/Hollywood. Median 26,093

[SDuderstadt]

77. Well...

I wouldn't peg congressional compensation to median income anyway unless a direct causal relationship could be established. Let's say the state Economic Development department scores a major coup and lands the relocation of some huge corporation, doubling the media income overnight. Why should the member of congress benefit from that?

Like I said before, very poor reasoning and a truly bad idea.

[bighart]

10. Also include a provision that their pensions are based on

average income in the district they represented and could be no more than say 150% of the average household income from that district.

[Control-Z]

16. There would be districts

with no representation, I'm afraid, and the affluent districts would have crazy battles for what would become coveted positions. People are not that generous.

[bighart]

27. Sadly you are probably right

Foolish of me to think it might actually inspire them to fight for the best interest of the people that voted for them.

[Control-Z]

49. Not foolish.

I'm always trying to think of a new ways to make change. In my case, it's reproductive rights that I spend a lot of time thinking about. But I've gotten to the point I seldom even respond to abortion OPs because I feel like I've said it all, multiple times. It isn't easy to find new workable solutions.

[bighart]

59. I have been politically active

for almost 30 years and have become so jaded and disillusioned it hurts.

[Control-Z]

85. ...

:hug:

[cynatnite]

11. A congress person from a poor region couldn't afford to live in D.C....

Those in wealthier districts would be able to afford it. They'd have an advantage.

[immoderate]

13. I think they would "go on the take..."

Oh -- wait a minute. :yoiks:

--imm

[Little Star]

23. LOL

[Cleita]

28. They should also have the same crappy health insurance

everyone else gets too, you know the one that costs $900 a month, preferrably out of their pockets, with a $10,000 deductible per year, and from what I understand is the cheapest catastrophic insurance one can get if they are over fifty.

[Skidmore]

29. The problem is less their pay than the legalized kickbacks they

get in the form of campaign contributions. I think they should be forced to return unused campaign fund to the people in someway and not be allowed to amass warchests and no person should be allowed to be a paid lobbyist for at least 2 terms out of office.

[Cleita]

31. Instead we should have public campaign funds.

Every candidate who qualifies to run gets a set amount for campaigning out of public funds. No candidate gets more nor less. There would be no need for lobbyists or kickbacks then and everyone would be on a level playing field as far as money is concerned. Our system invites corruption. It's time to stop it.

[Earth_First]

30. I for one don't feel they should be paid ANYTHING...

It should be a civic duty where they represent us out of a devotion to serving the United States of America.

Afterwards, go get a cushy K-Street job. However, I feel the need for special interest lobbyists would be drastically reduced under this model.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

36. Here's an even better idea...

Why pay any government workers anything at all? Mail carriers, police, firefighters, teachers, etc. should do it out a sense of civic responsibility.

Makes no less sense than your silly idea.

The anti-government rhetoric on DU is really appalling and discouraging.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

48. Hey, I was a mail carrier. I didn't make nearly as much as congreesscritters.

I was a GI, too. $79 a month when I joined up.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

38. How about paying them what their worth to us. Or, give them some actual work to do.

Unless, one thinks that accumulating campaign funds, getting payoffs from the lobbyists, and taking junkets to Paris, is work.

[SDuderstadt]

39. Do you honestly think it's...

not hard work to be a member of Congress?

Honestly, the anti-government sentiment some display here is truly baffling.

[white_wolf]

40. To be fair I'm sure there are those in Congress

who barely work at all, but the ones who do work have a very hard job I'm sure. And a rather thankless one at times.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

41. Compared to what other work?

Ditch digger?

Garbage collector?

Miner?

Considering that 44% of congresscritters are millionaires, I find it somewhat hard to find sympathy for their poverty.

And, no I don't think their work is particularly "hard" or particularly beneficial.

[SDuderstadt]

42. Dude...

always nice to see more anti-government sentiment and rhetoric here at DU. "Congresscritters"?

How about Gabrielle Giffords? Think she earned her pay? How do you know what a member of Congress does?

I honestly feel like I have accidentally landed at FR some days.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

43. I can see the results of what congresscritters do.

Currently funding 2 lost wars that kill people.

Voting for laws to curtail our freedoms i.e. the recent vote to extend the "Patriot Act".

Voting to extend tax-breaks for the rich.

Continuing to take payoffs..er, "campaign contributions" from corporations and lobbyists.

Giving themselves pay raises.

etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum.


And, you can count me with these "dudes".

"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." Thomas Paine

"When politics enter . . . government, nothing resulting there from in the way of crimes and infamies is then incredible. It actually enables one to accept and believe the impossible."

"In . . . politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing."

"The government of my country snubs honest simplicity, but fondles artistic villainy, and I think I might have developed into a very capable pickpocket if I had remained in the public service a year or two."

"Right here in this heart and home and fountain-head of law, this great factory where are forged those rules that create good order and compel virtue and honesty in the other communities of the land, rascality achieves its highest perfection."

Mark Twain

[SDuderstadt]

45. I see...

so, you still can't tell me what their day is like. It's easier to just issue some generalized criticism from the sidelines.

Simple question: how many hours, on average, do you believe a typical member of Congress works per day?

I'd be willing to bet you wouldn't last as single day.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

47. And, how many days would a typical politician last being a garbage collector?

You know, people who actually do something beneficial for society for a helluva lot less than politicians rake in.

[SDuderstadt]

50. Yeah...

Democratic members of the 110th Congress were real slouches, weren't they? If I need anti-government, "they're all bastards" rhetoric, I can get that on Fox or at FR.

Don't bother responding.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

51. You're admiration for politicians is...touching.

[SDuderstadt]

53. "You're (sic) admiration"

You mean for politicians such JFK, RFK, EMK, Russ Feingold, Al Franken, Barney Frank, John Conyers, George Miller, Mark and Tom Udall, Obama, Biden, Waxman, Leahy, Weiner, Pelosi, Boxer, Murray, Mikulski, Stabenow, etc?

Guilty as charged.

You're (sic) cynicism is like a wet blanket. Like I said, please don't respond.

[LanternWaste]

80. I imagine that admiration for a politician

I imagine that admiration for a politician for no other reason than being a politician is just as absurd as a position as disdain for a politician for no other reason than being a politician.

[SDuderstadt]

81. I suspect that TYL...

is more interested in ranting than debating.

[MedicalAdmin]

68. Get off it, Dude.

Want to know who I first heard the term "congress critter" from? Paul Wellstone. Do you think he was a freeper?

[SDuderstadt]

70. No...

I just think it's a stupid term.

[MedicalAdmin]

73. Fair enough.

My congressional representative is Michelle Bachmann. I'll stick to congress critter.

[SDuderstadt]

76. Well...

you should be working your ass off night and day to get rid of her.

In the meantime, I would prefer strategies/terminologies that target the GOP/Tea Party WITHOUT demeaning/trivializing our noble institutions in the process. Just because the "Huns have breached the gate" doesn't mean we should help fuel anti-government/anti-Congress sentiment.

[MedicalAdmin]

94. Great.

Get back to me when you have something you feel worthy of discussion.

FYI - I've been working to deep six that bitch since before her first election. This is one of the worst gerrymandered districts in the nation.

[WatsonT]

83. They could work for tips

[JI7]

52. Sounds like some kind of Regressive Tax System

[Overseas]

60. K&R. Fascinating idea. //nt

[JoePhilly]

62. Same basic idea has been proposed in another form.

Rather than pay companies for bombers and missles, pay them for creating peace.

People and companies will do whatever you pay them to do. So don't pay them to make war, pay them to wage peace.

If you take 1 million dollars and make a bomb, and then drop that bomb, the million dollars is gone.

If you take the same million, use it to invest in a peace mission, it builds on itself.

[LanternWaste]

79. I imagine it would cause a dramatic increase in kickbacks.

I imagine it would cause a dramatic increase in kickbacks.

Additionally, if a public official is required to represent their constituency via comparable pay scales, would that not also require (using an extension of that reasoning) representation via age? race? religion? philosophy? artistic or even culinary tastes?

[WatsonT]

82. Then they would create tax-incentives to penalize the poor and reward the rich

To shift the demographics in their favor (oh but they'd never screw over people for personal gain, surely?)

[tritsofme]

90. You have this completely ass-backwards.

If congressmen are paid crappy salaries, then ONLY the rich could afford to be congressmen. Even now, the vast majority of these congressmen are probably taking pay-cuts relative to what they could make in the private sector.

The deck is already stacked against a non-megarich person making it to Congress, this would be the nail in the coffin.

Your idea would leave running for Congress available only to those that do not need a paycheck.