Congressmen do not receive Secret Service protection unless they are a major presidential or vice-presidential candidate.
The Secret Service FAQ.
I’m sorry, I have to disagree. I don’t there is a single altruistic person on Capitol Hill. They’re all in it for the loot. Otherwise, why would they lay out big chunks of their own money, as well as others money, to get elected.
I think election spending reform might help a lot here. Simply limit campaign spending to the total amount that will be earned in salary during the term of office. We’ll either then wind up with people who are really dedicated, or Congress will vote the salaries up to $20 million a year.
For the power.
What loot? These people aren’t altruistic, but they have big egoes and generally think they can do the job better than just about anyone else. They have ideas and they want to implement them. Of course, sometimes the idea they want to implement is a corrupt way to implement them, but that’s generally not the case. I’ve worked on the Hill in a couple different Congressional offices and know lots more people who have. By and large, your average Congressman cares takes the job pretty seriously and tries to do what he or she thinks is the right thing both for the country and their constituency.
The problem with this is that it was determined that cost of living increases are not bound by the Amendment.
I find it rather shamefull that while Congressmen sit back and watch their salaries get adjusted periodically for cost of living, the Federal Minimum Wage has stayed the same for the past 8 years. Goddamned hypocrites.
Really, with their salary and all of the “perks”, it still doesn’t add up to the kind of dough you could make in the private sector, so I don’t believe that the money is the main draw.
Perhaps for some it’s as This Year’s Model says: the power, but I believe that Neurotik’s answer hits closer to home. People go into government thinking they have the answers and can help make valuable changes.
I’ve never understood the deep resentment that some people feel when it comes to the salaries and “perks” that government employees get. I see them as important jobs which should pay well enough to attract good people.
To make them basically volunteer possitions for which the only compensation is the intangible powers or a sense of well-being for serving one’s country virtually ensures that the only people who will go for such positions are those who are already independantly wealthy. I don’t think that’s such a good thing.
My solution is simpler: every candidate who gets over X number of signatures gets a set sum from the government for their campaign, and are forbidden by law from spending anything else, or having groups campaign specifically for them (campaigning about issues would be different-- you just couldn’t mention names, in other words).
Legislators should make a good wage. That’s a tradition going way back to the English Parliamentary reforms that instituted a salary for MPs so that those in the middle class could actually afford to be an MP if elected.
What we should be arguing about is the fact that salary is no longer the block for the middle class to get into politics, but the money for the campaign is.
Salary was implemented to remove a block. This newer block should be removed as well.
A don’t think a $3100 raise is much to get worked up over. The way I read the article, it is just an automatic cost of living increase that they could have blocked and didn’t. I certainly wouldn’t be skipping to the bank if someone gave me a $3100 raise. That is just $8.50 a day minus taxes.
I’m sure it costs a lot to be a Congressman with all the entertaining, travel, and wardrobe expenses. $160,000 a year isn’t going to be that high of a lifestyle in DC especially maintaining a place in their area of original. Add in kids, and I can see a problem. I certainly wouldn’t take that job for salary alone.
You can finds cuts in programs every year. It is disingenuous to say that CONGRESS IS VOTING ITSELF A RAISE WHILE CUTTING XXXXXX! By that logic, they would never get a raise. Cuts aren’t always bad either. I can’t speak to this case but it is possible they were justified and wise.
I dunno if they have to pay into it or not, but they certainly have to be in office for a minimum period of time (IIRC, it’s a single term) and they can lose it if they’re removed from office because of criminal activity.
Certain ones are, but the kind I’m talking about totally scripted with the critters staff asking the critter the questions. So it’s not like the kind where the critters facing a real reporter and potentially having to answer some difficult questions.
Back in the early 1990s there was an article in Harper’s magazine about some nutjob who kept writing to his/her Congresscritter claiming that Bob Hope was psychically attacking him/her and causing all kinds of problems in their life. The Congresscritter had the FBI investigate Bob Hope over the matter. One would think that the critter would simply toss those letters in the bin, but according to the article they actually the FBI check ol’ Bob out.
The President of the United States should get Minimum Wage, plus tips.
On each personal income tax form, there should be a little box you can check, that would allow you to include a $5 tip for the President, if you thought he did a good job in the previous year. $5 is too little for anybody to regard as a serious bribe, but if 100,000,000 people like his work, it could add up to major bling-bling.
This idea appeared in Mad Magazine, but a number of ideas from Mad have appeared in RL, and I think that we would attract a better class of Prexi-dent.
I think even old Al Sharpton could rack up some serious bling-bling with that. A president would have to suck amazingly hard to not pull in $100,000,000 a year or more. Doesn’t seem to be much incentive when you are guaranteed a gigantic jackpot that differs only in degrees of huge.
Of course that may only work the first year when people check the box and don’t think through the numbers. The President will be on stage getting a check from Ed McMahon for $125,000,000 saying “Thanks Everybody!” and that will be the last of that. The next year he will get, like, $45.
Yeah, but if a failing company fires their CEO, that person will probably end up being a Republican Representative or President. Better to keep them in the CEO’s office, where they can’t do any real damage.
You people are missing the whole point. Why am I not surprised?
Seeing as this is a right wing board.
Congress is saying we don’t have enough money to help you feed your children but there is plenty of money to give ourselves a raise.
This doesn’t bother anyone?
Besides me?
Sure it does, but all I can do is vote against the incumbents, so at least THEY won’t get the money. I’d kind of like to see some sort of congressional Pay For Performance scheme, like they are trying to push on the more mundane civil service types. If they all had to be useful to get paid, that would sure clear the hallowed halls of Washington quick. But how to set the performance goals and criteria - that’s the hard part.
Probably. Meanwhile, where I live, teachers have to put in ten years to have the privilege of paying each month for the insurance that provides them with coverage for their medical care after retirement. Is that the same kind of plan?
That doesn’t seem to be working out.
Misplaced priorites. They are the public servants. The legitmate needs of those they serve should be taken care of first before any entertainment and wardrobe needs. We have citizens living on the brink. Let the public servants wear t-shirts and jeans and serve MREs until the people – those victimized by hurricanes and FEMA, for example – have their basic needs met.
According to the article, the assistance progamr is $35 billion. The congress has voted itselfa total of $1.7 million in raises…or about 0.005%.
Yeah I know the OP is complaining about the symbolism, but I can’t get all worked about that. I just don’t have a problem with a relatively minor cost-of-living pay increase.
This is about their own money. Incedental expenses are incurred by people in government to perform the responsibilities the job. Some of those include dressing professionally and socializing with people that can get things done. Like a schoolteacher buying classroom supplies, these are thing that are necessart to do the job effectiveley but aren’t directly reimbursed. A $3100 raise for Congress is a miniscule fraction and wouldn’t help any large problem much. This was just a cost of living adjustment.
This aren’t bad times at all economically. Are you saying that last year’s salary should be frozen indefinitely until ALL the problems are corrected? That is idiotic and budget cuts don’t automatically indicate a problem. Programs can be downsized even with huge surpluses available and that can be a wise move.
As an aside, I have always read about the Washington Post, but I haven’t read it myself in recent memory. What a piece of shit article. That could have been written by a Berkeley freshmen. The article was designed to hide the fact that the raise wasn’t voted in. It is an automatic yearly cost of living raise that they COULD have stopped if they tried hard enough.
There is no story here and Zoe, you and the OP are blathering idiots trying to strike out against a Republican controlled Congress in any way you can. There is no basis for that. They are just the passive recipients of a perfectly fair law that was passed ages ago.
Do you really think that Congresspeople pay for their job-related entertaining and travel out of their salaries?