It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


'Pay-As-You-Go' II

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 09:42 AM
I have an idea regarding Congress and 'Pay-As-You-Go'...

What if all Congressional members were paid 'As-You-Go'?

I view it as a basic plan for eliminating their salaries altogether and paying them on a commission plan directly tied to their overall performance as regards...

1. The economy
2. Healthcare
3. Housing
4. Employment
5. Deficit reduction
6. Crime reduction
7. Constitutional adherence
8. Efforts (and results) in support of both lower and middle class
9. Individual rights
10. Veteran support
11. Elimination of corporate lobbying
12. Promotion of capitalism and its fundamentals (NO MORE BAILOUTS)
13. And add whatever else you want...

I have to tell you that, as far as I'm concerned, the Congressional payroll would be considerably less than the current state, based on a pay-for-performance standard. Not only that, but we as a nation would not be in the dire straights that we currently find ourselves in.

Your thoughts?

posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 10:18 AM
Good idea. While we are at it, let's cap Congressional pay to correspond with the average worker's pay, and take away their cheap insurance too, make them pay like the rest of us that want good insurance.

posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 06:45 AM
reply to post by autowrench

You're absolutely correct.

They should also be subject to 'levels of benefits' based upon performance.

Good call!

posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 06:48 AM
Yeah of course its a great idea.
There has been many a politician who offered to work for free, of course they never succeed.
But the problem is they make the laws, they will never change it to make themselves have to actually work harder.
All you vote for is them, not what they do.
The Arcadian style democracy is long since gone.

posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 06:56 AM
That will never happen OP. Heres why: Congress gets full retirement benefits after one year in the house. They get annual salary until they are dead, they reap the benefits of money deals with special interest groups, it's basically you get elected you got it made until the dirt nap.

Heres my plans for those asses in suits:

  • Reduce the House of Representatives from the current 435 members to 218 members and Senate members from 100 to 50 (one per State). Also reduce remaining staff by 25%.
  • Do this over the next 8 years. 2 elections, 2 votes.

Some yearly monetary gains include:

$44,108,400 for elimination of base pay for congress. (267 members X $165,200 pay / member / yr.)

$97,175,000 for elimination of the above people's staff.
(estimate $1.3 Mil in staff per each member of the House, and $3 Mil in staff per each member of the Senate every year)

$240,294 for the reduction in remaining staff by 25%.

$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork barrel ear-marks each year.
(those members whose jobs are gone. Current estimates for total government pork earmarks are at $15 Billion / yr)

The remaining representatives would need to work smarter and would need to improve efficiencies. It might even be in their best interests to work together for the good of our country?

We may also expect that smaller committees might lead to a more efficient resolution of issues as well. It might even be easier to keep track of what your representative is doing.

Congress has more tools available to do their jobs than it had back in
1911 when the current number of representatives was established. (telephone, computers, cell phones to name a few)

Congress did not hesitate to head home when it was a holiday, when the nation needed a real fix to the economic problems.
Also, we have had 3 senators that have not been doing their jobs for the past 18+ months (on the campaign trail) and still they all have been accepting full pay. These facts alone support a reduction in senators & congress.

Summary of opportunity:

$ 44,108,400 reduction of congress members.

$282,100,000 for elimination of the reduced house member staff.

$150,000,000 for elimination of reduced senate member staff.

$59,675,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining house members.

$37,500,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining senate members.

$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork added to bills by the reduction of congress members.

$8,073,383,400 per year, estimated total savings.

Big business does these types of cuts all the time, just like they are doing right now America!

If Congresspersons were required to serve 20, 25 or 30 years (like everyone else) in order to collect retirement benefits there is no telling how much we would save. Now they get full retirement after serving only ONE term. Which is a load of Bravo Sierra.

posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 10:51 AM
That's wishful thinking, but I don't think it'll ever happen. If I'm not mistaken, Congress determines their own pay anyway.

I like the points W3rLied2 brought up, and the OP's ideas. I did a huge report on executive compensation in America, and, to sum it up briefly, I came to the same conclusion that all pay should be based on performance and service time. CEO's getting million dollar bonuses and severance packages for brief service times, or for no actual company progress? Congress getting full benefits for 1 year of service? These kinds of things seem pretty bogus to me.

top topics

log in