As the American Tea Party revs up and the US government reaches deeper and deeper into our pockets and each and every one of us watches our futures being mortgaged and our dreams deferred, is it time for our leaders to share in the pain as well?
Is it time for… A Salary Cap for Congress?
Since our government intends to cap the salaries of CEOs, is it not fair that their own salaries be capped as well?
It would seem so, considering many of the same people responsible for the economic meltdown we are now experiencing are still serving in the House and Senate – and have been for years, even decades. To pick one example, Arlen Specter (age 79!) has been the Senator from Pennsylvania since 1980, going on 30 years. His salary, as of 2008, is $169,300.00. (That doesn’t include generous health and retirement benefits, which vest for life after five years, less then one six-year Senate term.) Should his salary, and that of other Senators, be capped at that point, expanded or cut back? What would be fair under current circumstances?
And should some of our more affluent Congressional leaders, like Senator Kerry and Speaker Pelosi, who are multi-multi-millionaires, forego their salaries while voting for various bailout proposals that place the American people in debt at trillion-dollar levels? Similarly, since Congress is using a form of means testing in the mortgage bailout plan, penalizing the vast majority of Americans (92% by one study) who regularly pay their mortgages, should we use a form of means testing while computing Congressional salaries?
I leave that to you, dear reader. But there seems to be a storm brewing, a tea party in the offing, and I can see why. While watching last year’s mini-series about the life of John Adams, I never dreamt we might be living through those dramatic days of the American Revolution again. But this time it won’t be against the British. It will be against ourselves.
UPDATE: Congress (and Nancita) mulls what to do (Politico):
Aides to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said members were free to offer amendments to block the congressional cost-of-living adjustment but declined to say if she has taken a position on the matter.
“If the members want, there will be an opportunity to address this issue in the next legislative branch appropriations bill,” said Brendan Daly, Pelosi’s spokesman.
Members of Congress will earn an annual salary of $174,000 in 2009. Party leaders make more; House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) will get $223,500 this year, while Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) and Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) will earn $193,400 each.
Speaking of generous health and retirement benefits, remember when the economic crisis hit and the giant investment banking firm of Bear Sterns filed for bankruptcy? The company asked for financial
assistance from the government but Congress decided (wisely) that private businesses make their own decisions and should be held accountable for them. Consequently, Bear Sterns went out of business.
Then several months later AIG, the huge insurance company, announced it too
was in financial difficulty. Congress did a 180 turn in their philosophy
and provided bailout money for AIG. Why the change of heart? Was it out of
concern for the tens of thousands of citizens who might loose money? Or
perhaps Congress was suddenly concerned for the economy as a whole. Well, it
was nothing that complicated.
AIG INSURES THE PENSION TRUST FUND FOR MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES
CONGRESS!
Salary cap? Hell, yes, followed immediately by a term cap (How about 2 in the Senate, 4 in the House?, no mixing, no repeats) to be followed by a repeal of the XVI amendment!
The official salary & benefits package represents only a tiny part of the job-related income of a typical Congressman or other politician. There are also paid speaking engagements, book & article sales, and–most important–after leaving office there is a much higher billing rate at the law firm or lobbying firm.
I believe the Clintons have a net worth of around $100 million. Barack Obama, even if he had lost the election, would have probably been wealthier than he would have been had he follow the career of a Wall Street Lawyer.
Politicians talk a lot about the nobility of their public service, but generally do quite well for themselves financially…BUT, money isn’t their *primary* motivation…that would be status, adulation, and power. Not clear why we should view these objectives as morally superior to money-making.
But what’s preventing our representatives seeming to further seeking alternative incomes streams in the form of political contribution. As they do now.
Regarding term caps, it didn’t improve the situation in California.
The only solution to this problem is putting this country under a benevolent dictatorship. I humbly nominate myself for the position. I will be appointing Roger Simon as my Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda.
When I comment here, I remove my shoes for it is hallowed ground. Be our new John Adams, Roger. (Actually, it was Sam Adams who helped to lead the Tea Party) What is it we must do? Senora Pelosi has more money than Arnold, yet he declines his salary and she does not.
Sounds good. In fact the IRS had better automatically do a full audit of every politician in Washington.
These stooges need term limits. 2 for a Senator, 4 for a Representative. It will probably need to be a Constitutional Amendment from State conventions because these jerks will never vote themselves less power.
We should cap and index representatives and senators to a portion of GDP. As the economy tanks, they get pay cuts just like the ordinary people are.
I actually think they should be paid more, but forbidden from any other income while in Congress. No “speaking fees”, no “donations to personal foundations”, no book deals, no “part time” law practice, etc. Also, their finances should be completely public and all existing wealth should be in a blind trust.
And all money in campaign finance kitties should revert to the government or to “real” charities (ie, not the Foobarista Foundation) when they quit.
If they did this, I’d have no problem with them making at least double their current income – which isn’t very much compared with other high-level professional jobs. Frankly, I don’t want low Congressional base pay – if we do that, we’ll just be inviting even more corruption.
In any case, Congress isn’t getting rich on its base income. It’s getting rich off the perks of power, which get monetized by all this external “stuff”. _That_ is what matters.
Salary cap? Yes. You’re here to serve, not to get wealthy off the backs of taxpayers.
Term limits? Yes. Nobody should spend an entire career in the unproductive class. And I would extend those limits to virtually anyone in government (i.e. bureaucrats), and nobody gets to start off in government, either. The idea should be to learn a marketable skill that actually produces wealth (which government doesn’t), lend the talents from that skill to public service for a brief period of time, and then return to the productive class. Nobody gets to suckle from the government teat for more than ten years.
Perks? Next to none. Any health care plan that they vote for is one that they’ll have to live under as well. No more “two Americas” in that respect.
And, considering all the Cabinet’s tax problems of late, everyone in Congress gets audited every year, with the results going up on the Internet.
(I’d even concede the slightly higher salary recommended by Foobarista above if all the rest of his/her ideas were also implemented.)
Does anyone out there know what health insurance benefits the Congress and its congressional staffs receive and how much they pay for those benefits? Also, fo==
Do congress and the congressional staffs pay Social Security and medicare taxes? The public should know if there are any requirements imposed by the Congress on the rest of us that do not apply to themselves. How do their health benefits work? How much do they contribute? How do their pension benefits work? If anyone has the answers to these questions, I think we all would appreciate hearing from them. Also, how about beginning with full disclosure of congressional tax returns by, say, June 15th of each year (including spousal returns, if filing separately).
make a new law which declares that 5% of any budget surplus will be disbursed among congress as ‘bonus’ to their pay.
we’ll have record surpluses within five years.
How do you overcome the conflict innate to setting your own salary? Why not have compensation for members of Congress set by their respective state legislators?
The other, related problem is that far too high a % of Congressmen are lawyers. The experience one gains as a lawyer may be useful in many ways, but it is a very small part of the total human experience. I’d like to see more people from other professions represented. Unfortunately, in most other professions, if you take time to campaign and to serve, your career will likely be in ruins when you come back to it. Not so in law, where your contacts and exposure will likely *increase* your professional value and income.
Actually in addition to a cap on salary and imposition of term limits -2 terms in the Sentate and 6 terms in the House – their oh so generous medical bernefits, and other government perks should be cut back and replaced with Medicare or Medicaid. Thier retirement plans should be eliminated and let them “retire on Social CSecurity” and whateve they can accumulate in a 401K proogram – I bet they’d be more considerate and dileberate about raiding the “Social Security Trust Fund” for their pet projects if this were the case.
In addiiton, their office budgets and in particular their ability to travel extensively around the world should be eliminated since the United States government has such as extensive network of embasseys worldwide if they need information call their embassy. No more traveling in Government owned or leased corporate jets, no more travel on Government owned Boeing 757s like our current speaker does, no more travel on Military aircraft – get in line and travel on commercial airlines just like the rest of us.
These folks have been given a free lunch and the ability to do whatever they want at taxpayer expense for too, too many years and it’s time they began to live like us “common” folk aggain so they have to live and deal with common, everyday issues.
The base pay should be the average of the people they are representing period! There is no shortage of people willing to take the job. Quality people blah blah. Look what we have now. You would get better people with lower pay and perks—maybe even some patriots.
I agree with formwiz – salary cap? Hell yea, followed by term limits.
At another site commenter TL James said:
“Here are three principles to consider:
- individual rights with personal responsibility;
- small and limited government
- free-market capitalism
In my direct experience so far, Republicans, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, Libertarians, libertarians, Objectivists, and even a few anarchocapitalists have been able to agree on these points.”
I 100%, wholeheartedly agree with this as the foundation.
Aside though, the government doesn’t have to care about our protests since the media makes these events become invisible. The colonists hurt the British by boycotting the product after dumping the goods overboard in the Boston Tea Party. That’s a big difference from us today. Do we have any way to materially show our objections to the governement in a way that they will care about?
When asked why he robbed banks, Willie Sutton answered, “That’s where the money is.” Unfortunately, that’s why too many members of Congress are in D.C.
This link, via http://www.instapundit.com to a Hartford Courant article on the latest Chris Dodd “favor” further highlights the problem:
http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/op_ed/hc-rennie0222.artfeb22,0,4471645.column
I think we need to throw the bums out before we engage in any discussions about how much to pay our so called representatives. It’s my impression that our founding fathers envisioned a government of “citizens”, rather than an entrenched cadre of professional politicians.
I agree with the previous comments that term limits is a critical step in preventing our elected representatives becoming full-time politicos. After a term or two, they all need to return to the plow.
I think Bill Buckley once remarked that he’d rather be governed by the first 1,000 names in the Boston phone book than the scoundrels we’ve sent to Washington.
Maybe it’s time for a revolution. At the risk of getting arrested, I’ll add, a peaceful revolution. We can’t continue like this. Our government has become a tyranny far greater than that of old King George. All of our institutions and “leaders” have let us down. It’s time to tear it all down and begin anew.
As david foster and TC Powell – at least in his first two lines
– have already pointed out, our reps make a great deal of money outside of their base salaries and are often lawyers capable of finding their way past, ahem, new *ethics* laws.
The Tea Party movement is great, but I would caution against populist frenzy for its own sake, lest we all start tearing up and melting down the way Glenn Beck does on TV every day. It would be far more revolutionary to become more involved in the process at all levels of government, taking this energy and applying it towards voting at least some of the key bums out (Sen. Dodd is teetering already, for example).
Establishing an Army of Mr. Smiths in D.C. is a wonderful dream and it sounds good at first blush, however it also sounds more than a little absolutist and utopian – which is better left to the Kos kiddies. A targeted “revolution” that addresses individual issues (taxes, spending, etc.) could be very effective and helpful. A real, all-out revolution would create upheaval that most reasonable Americans do not want for their children or for themselves, as in a lot of people quite literally dying.
This is the greatest country in the history of the world, it needn’t burn in order to renew itself. The renewal begins in earnest with the 2010 mid-terms — focusing on that will effect real “change” far more than any pitchfork-wielding fantasies. Just my two cents….be gentle, I come in peace.
A good start!
Lightnin’, I really wish we could do it your way but I think our institutions are so broken and our representatives so corrupted that it’s beyond repair.
It’s similar to an old building. When the inspectors go through it and find that everything needs to be replaced, it’s just easier to tear it down and put up something new. We can devote considerable energy to pulling out the old plumbing and replacing it;only to find that the foundation is rotten and the roof is ready to fall in.
I see the Tea Party idea is starting to gain momentum http://michellemalkin.com/2009/02/21/tea-party-usa-the-movement-grows/
People will be paying their taxes in the next two months. Many of them will be wondering if it’s worth working the extra job or putting in the overtime just to have Obama take their money away from them and give it to ACORN.
When I rail against the bailout scheme my friends ask me what I would do. My suggestion is term limits, and maybe finally we can get there.
Help the current economic mess? Frankly, I don’t see that these fools can do anything to help; but can cause much greater damage, so just stay out of the way.
Mitigate future problems? It’s clear that the corrupt business of campaign financing and cozy relationships between the crooks in the investment community and the bigger crooks in Congress has caused this mess. Destroy the value of those relationships, and you clear the swamp, so to speak.
Folks in my small (delegation-wise) state (NM) say that having long-serving representatives with some clout is the only way that we can survive against the bigger states like TX, CA, IL, NY, etc. However, that argument is lost when our only powerful congressman (Domenici) has been replaced by a do-nothing, skilless, party hack socialist (Udall). Notwithstanding that fact, allowing these people to make careers out of being a congressperson has directly led to rampant, uncontrolled corruption that exists.
My party registration? Unaligned. My vote? Anti-incumbent.
why not have congressional pay be decided by thier individual states? healthcare, travel, housing the works. The federal governmnet would be responsible for providing meeting space and offices. everything else would be decided by teh states and our congressmen would.. of all things.. be resonsible to and employed by the states that elected them.
Pops, fair enough…dibs on Schumer!
Seriously though, I was just responding to some of the rabble rousing commentary I’ve been reading in various places. People are mad. Great. I wish that passion would have been there in such force a few months ago.
Before witnessing this administration’s ungainly stumble out of the gate over the past month – worse than most people could’ve imagined – I never would have thought that 2010 could end up like 1994, but now, well, shazam! The institutions are fine, I would argue, it’s the representation that needs to change. For ultimately, after the smoke of revolution clears and this new and improved system of governance took power, it would be hard-pressed to best the founding documents and principles we already have to guide us.
One thing’s for sure, guys like this: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/02/022901.php don’t grow on trees. Happy birthday, George. Thanks for holding it all together way back when.
I don’t think salary is the big worry. Rather it is the power over regulations, taxation, etc. Term limits is more appropriate than salary caps. Although I cringe a bit because it is anti-democratic (people should be able to vote for whom they want), people live a lot longer than when the country was founded. Our laws should take into account the impact that social forces, such as greatly increased lifespan among other things, has on society. There is no good reason that a Robert Byrd has the kind of power he does. Our legislature must have more openings for new blood. Incumbency simply bestows too many institutional and fundraising advantages.
My main concern with term limits is that it makes the “unelected” Capitol Hill staff apparatchiks even more powerful than they are today — especially the staffs of the major committees. While few members of Congress read any of the 1,600+ pages of the “stimulus”, the thousands of these staffers, together, read it, and, with the union and other lobbyists, who also read it, wrote it.
We could end a lot of the regulations and rules by eliminating the majority of the paid positions on each congressman’s staff. They would then have to take the time to do the research themselves on any bill they wanted to present. A whole lot less would get done but I believe that would be a good thing. Also I agree that they should have the same retirement and medical benefits as the average American, Social Security and Medicare. If they want additional money in retirement it should be through 401K’s or IRA’s. Maybe them they will look at actually securing a SS Trust Fund with other than IOU’s. But I am afraid POPs is correct only a revolution will change this.
My main concern with term limits is that it makes the “unelected” Capitol Hill staff apparatchiks even more powerful than they are today — especially the staffs of the major committees.
Fred, my idea above (comment #10) solves this dilemma: Term limits for everyone in government. The larger problem we have here is that the unproductive class has much more power than it needs or deserves to have. By requiring people to work in the productive class for most of their lives and spending only a short time (ten years or less) in the unproductive class, we get a better class of people in government and the proper people in charge of things.
You don’t cap their pay, you don’t give them a salary, period. They can learn to budget, give each Senator and Congressman a set amount of money, say 5 million each year. He gets to decide how it is spent.He pays for everything out of the 5 million, including salaries,rent,heat,etc……now they might start making different decision on how to spend our money. I have, as a retired teacher, felt that if each person who teaches teachers had to go back to the classroom every fourth year. They would exchange with a teacher, no cost. That most of the horse333t that is taught, wouldn’t be taught because it doesn’t work. And the bad profs would dread going into a classroom, preferably the worst possible one,and quit.
Remember the people in the military? You know the ones that get shot at and killed, spend a LOT of time overseas, etc, etc? When they retire after 20 yrs, they retire at 50% of BASE pay, 75% after 30 yrs. hmmmmm…
Are the current salaries much higher than the current recipients deserve? Hell, yeah!
Is a salary cap a step towards getting better people for the job? Unfortunately no, not at all.
Lotta bad CEOs in the world, not many as bad as ordinary Congresscritters. CEOs get paid a lot more, but there’s not as much opportunity for graft. Maybe if the pay was a little more commensurate with the kind of decisions they were making, we might have honest people with real brains looking for the job instread of just the power-hungry or corrupt we have now.
We forget about that last approved Constitutional amendment – the one that says congress can’t raise their own salaries – in the current term?? Totally ignored. Perhaps because no current member of Congress had any hand in getting it passed?? A few years ago one Congressman tried to bring suit only to be told by the court he “had no standing” to bring the suit.
Throw them out and start over.
Currently, takers of TARP money have to surrender bonds to the federal government, in effect giving partial ownership to the federal government of their business.
Will those who receive help with their mortgages be surrendering any part of the ownership of their homes to the federal government ?
Well, a cap would be nice but it wouldn’t be commensurate with the pain inflicted upon CEOs. I say you take the average CEO Salary including stock options and jet usage – get the average, then figure out what percent of that 500k is. Say it’s 50% (it’d be a lot less). That’s what percentage of their current salary the pols get to keep.
They are after all “LEADERS” so they should lead by example.
Why not simply tie congressional salaries to some multiple of per capita income? Tie it to whatever multiple it is at present (what, like 500x?). Then, subtract each year the per capita national debt.
As for those nifty generous pension plans, I can only say one thing: 401(k), baby!
If we want to limit the compensation of our Congress-critters I’d recommend lifetime term limits over a salary cap. It’s the gerrymandered Congressional incumbents that really suck the life out of the taxpayer. How many tenured legislators like Teddy Kennedy, John Murtha, Arlen Specter, Robert Byrd and Ted Stevens do we need to illustrate the corruption inherent in the profession of politics?
I would recommend that there be a lifetime term limit of twelve years in any federal legislative office, that’s two terms in the Senate or six terms in the House of Representatives. Mix and match however you like, but no more that twelve years in your life, continuous or not.
That would likely balance the legislators needs to accept bribery in the name of “campaign finance” with the politically connected lobbies ability to influence legislation with the legislatures stated purpose of actually, you know, serving the public.
Not only a salary cap for congress, but that they live by the same rules, and forget the insurance and benefits after they leave!!!! I could scream congress/senate do as they want and we have to support them!!!! NO FAIR!!!
What about finding great Americans to run in each state on the half price plan. They agree to take half the salary of congress and social security pension like the rest of us. They also agree to passing a new law of limited terms.
Salary caps?? Absolutely, maybe even a commission or percentage of any balanced budget. If the budget goes into the negative, they would have to give a percentage of their salaries back!!! And wouldn’t it be nice to make them pay a percentage of their medical and dental? We could call it a copay”….. that’s a novel idea!
How about taxing them on their salaries???? You need to balance the budget, WOW, I bet this would take care of it! We would’t be borrowing Trillions, it would probably drop to millions!
Seriously though, historically, this is a “servent of the people” position. Of the original congress, those who were well off, had their own money. I truly believe the states should have the right to “vote” on the salaries and benefits of their representative and senators. These people have too much power.
Food for thought: who really has the power?? The news media, they report on what they want you to hear, how they want you to hear it and guide your opinions through their deliberate censationalism.
But,it’s just my opinion…..I’m just a conservative, middle aged, working taxpayer who cannot afford, food, insurance, medical or dental care, haven’t been on a vacation in over 2 years, wearing non designer, non up to date fashions, but I am “free” to spend my money on taxes and programs which officials whom I didn’t vote for (but the electoral college put into office) deems necessary, while the people who decide how I spend my money have no financial reponsibility toward these obligations,they squander my money on.
Rock on Tea Party, I am on your side!
Cap their income. Anything over $200,000 a Congressperson makes in any way shape or form, should be donated to charity.
On taxes, I wonder if any of them pay taxes,look at Obama’s cabinet pick’s. Salary cap and if they make money on the side, that is taken off their salary. No more low interest loans to them from Capital One.
George Washington did not believe that presidents and congressmen should be paid at all.
Tying one’s well-being to one’s position of authority is an open invitation to corruption. So what do have now? A corrupt government trying to clean up corrupt private enterprises, a bankrupt government trying to bail out bankrupt private enterprises, and tax cheats enforcing tax laws. Not to mention the fact that they are taking my children’s money before my children are even old enough to earn it. Term limits/salary caps or seccession…it’s got to be one or the other.