Good to see someone in congress gave a damn!

Sadly I'm guessing nothing ever came of it. In light of many of the complaints about government spending our money. I think it's nice to see not everyone in congress believes they should live like kings on our dime. Link

Ann Kirkpatrick is part of a rarefied group. With an annual salary of $174,000, she earns more than 97 percent of American workers. She’s also got a generous guaranteed pension, great health benefits, including on-site care, lots of free travel and an expense account that could make a corporate titan drool. She thinks it’s time that she took a pay cut. Congresswoman Kirkpatrick, a Democrat from Arizona, recently sponsored legislation to cut Congressional pay because she doesn’t think legislators should live like kings when the rest of the country is suffering. If she’s successful, it would be the first time legislators have cut their own pay since the Great Depression. “I think we should lead by example,” Kirkpatrick said. “As Congress considers where to make budget cuts to get our fiscal house in order, members need to do the right thing and start with their own pay.”

So while we're all worrying about government spending, perhaps we should consider this first.

Personally I know it will never happen, as stated, they decide their own paycheck, and that's a huge, megahuge problem. Who's going to vote themselves out of more benefits? Not many would. The way things are currently is a broken way of doing things that makes corruption inevitable and unstoppable as the system by it's nature protects itself.

I need a link, your thoughts on this, and that wall of text scaled back a bit.

In my opinion, we are in a depression that is a bit "greater" then the "great depression". So, I would feel that not only their paychecks cut, but perhaps they should go digital and not have to print these bills that are thousands of pages long 535 times. I think there was an act called the paper reduction act, perhaps they can revamp that and state that no draft bills (or any bills at all) need to be printed until it is finalized, codified, and in the library of congress.

Complaint noted, corrections made.

a reply to: Puppylove

Meh. Recommending, or calling for, a salary decrease, is a sure fired way to get public support, but she, and everyone else, knows that the majority of the lawmakers won't vote for it. Win/win?

a reply to: windword

Exactly. She has no intention of taking a pay cut. This is a great publicity stunt that does nothing but draw in votes.

If she really wants to back up her words, she will take the percentage she wanted to cut out of their pay, and donate it out of her own check.

Not the first time a lawmaker makes a call for this. As noted by others, they make the call, the constituents are mollified, nobody votes for it, life goes on and a few more votes are secured. Even her quote is similar to other calls lawmakers have made in the past.

Be a lot more meaningful if she did something with her own salary, like donate it or use it to bump the pay of her staff, etc.

I expect they will eventually (if not soon) drop their pay to next to nothing. 12-24K range with a cut in all the "above board" benefits.

No doubt it will be done a a show of solidarity with the "working man" in America. Won't that be swell.

Anyone that thinks their money comes from a salary is a deluded fool.

What a "slash and burn" policy to Congressional pay will do however is make it far less likely that normal people will ever serve again within it's halls. If some poor bastard does manage to make it the low pay and no benefits will make him easier for the lobbyists to manage.

Pass a law requiring all the Ticks to be audited by a third party prior to the 15th of April each year and I might believe you want positive change in Congress.

This will just lead to a wall be built against the common man, as if the wall wasn't high enough already

While I believe it is a great thing to reduce the salary of our Representatives, seeing as how they earn more than 97% of Americans; I also agree with Windword that it smells of political pandering at this stage. I am sure she and her family are not going to be in dire straits anytime soon. She is in her second term of office and her husband is an estate lawyer.
I would hope that one day we will be able to reign in the excesses of our Reps but I don't believe that will happen.

a reply to: 200Plus

You make an excellent point my friend. Most politicians are self-deluded fools it seems. They believe they can con the little guy forever. Would it be better that they can live like kings on our behalf, so not to prostitute themselves out to corporations and big private money? I do not even want to have to think in that box. Makes me feel fire in my chest. I have heard that judges get their lifetime gig with expenses so that they are content and will not be looking for bribes on the side.

a reply to: Puppylove

Maybe she could set an example and cut her own pay and benefits.

a reply to: Puppylove

Each and every politician's pay should be that of the average pay of the people in their City/County/District/State/Country. Which ever they represent.

If there were a legitimate chance of this being enacted, I might have more respect for her. As it stands, however, I tend to agree with the others that this is little more than a publicity stunt intended to create public support for her. No doubt it'll work as intended, which is to generate a few more votes on election day.

a reply to: macman

I've always said it should be the average national wage rate, but yes, I agree, averaging it against the state or district might work out better. In any case, its hard to see how a person can truly represent their constituents when they make more than 97% of them.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Puppylove

Each and every politician's pay should be that of the average pay of the people in their City/County/District/State/Country. Which ever they represent.

I have been saying the same thing for YEARS!

If you tie it to the national average they get awarded for economic health and punished for failure.....win/win.

If its good enough for the public its good enough for them.

I have no issue with a Tick getting 180K a year as a salary.

End their protections from insider trading, end their land scams, end the nepotism contracts.

The decent salary attracts capable people. Nobody is going to apply for a job that pays 15K, and if they did would you want them running the country?

End the retirement and put them in the same pool as the rest of us. With skin in the game they will be more apt to make better decisions.

Audit them every year to curb the lobby money.

Most importantly term limits to two terms and then they are finished. Let them go on to another job in the private sector.

It's never going to happen. Once a Tick gets blood it borrows in deep

a reply to: 200Plus

How does a member of congress accurately respresent their constituents when they're living on exorbitant salaries that is out of reach of over 90% of the populace? The answer is, they can't. Our government is suppose to be a representative democracy. It hasn't been that in a very long time.

Congressional pay should be capped at $50,000 a year.
Congressional terms should be capped at four years.

I've noticed that legislators what call for their salary to be cut are usually in competitive districts.

'D' or 'R'.

I'd love to see thirty-forty congresspeople join in on this and make the rest take a stand on the issue. usually I think this sort of thing is killed in committee so no one has to go on record as keeping their pay.
(IIRC the occasional raise is done in seconds with a voice vote; 'HR 666statescongressgetstenpercentraiseallinfavoraye'aye'ayeshaveitpassedon to the next order of business.')

a reply to: EternalSolace

Where would these Ticks live in the DC area on 50K a year?
Would the security they would need in those areas be provided or would they have to pay for that out of the 50K?

Be realistic.

Four years is barely enough time to get a complete grasp of the total workings of a job. The second four years would be the "experienced" years, if the won reelection.

originally posted by: 200Plus
a reply to: EternalSolace

Where would these Ticks live in the DC area on 50K a year?
Would the security they would need in those areas be provided or would they have to pay for that out of the 50K?

Be realistic.

Four years is barely enough time to get a complete grasp of the total workings of a job. The second four years would be the "experienced" years, if the won reelection.

How about they live in government housing. That's good enough for their constituents. Why not for them?

If for years is good enough for the president, it's good enough for a congressmen.

Oh I'm aware it was probably pandering for votes, but if enough say stuff like this there might end up being a way to make them put their money were their mouth is.

I too believe their time in office should be limited.

I also think there should be a vote every so many years, like a presidential election, that determines how much they get paid voted on by the people of the United States. In theory they're supposed to be our employees, right?

Put their pay in our hands instead of their own.