Should ordinary citizens, not Congress, decide all Congressional pay raises?(see post

Whenever Congress votes itself a raise, it's always a political hot potato. It does seem strange that they can vote themselves their own raises. Imagine at wherever you work if the employees could all get together and vote, "Say aye if you think everyone here deserves a 10 percent raise." I think it would be tough for such a place to stay in business. On the other hand, I won't say that Congress should never get a raise. All professions should have raises available. So here's my proposal.

Congress will be stripped of its ability to vote itself a pay raise. In its place, we would have a 12-person jury of ordinary citizens pledged to be impartial. Congress will select an advocate, it could be a member of Congress or it could be an attorney, to make the case for the raise and for how much. When Congress is done making its case, a rebuttal case will be put on by a qualified attorney. This attorney will argue that Congress does not deserve a raise and will cite the reasons why. Both the pro and the con advocates will be given rebuttal time to cross examine and put holes in the other person's case.

When all cases and rebuttals are done, the jury will deliberate. The jury is free to accept the full raise asked for or to reject it outright or to accept a lesser amount. It's acceptable for the jury to decide, "They asked for 10 percent; we're giving them 3 percent." In order for a raise to go into law, 9 of 12 jurors have to vote for it.

This system would get rid of a political hot potato issue and would empower ordinary citizens while offering Congress the possibility to get raises. What do you think? Vote on whether you think this plan would be better than how we currently do it.

Re: Should ordinary citizens, not Congress, decide all Congressional pay raises?(see

To be honest, I find all the stuff about Congress's salaries to be missing the mark. They don't really care how much they get paid. Virtually all of them were making more money before they came to Congress and every single one of them could get 10 or even 1,000 times as much working somewhere else now that they have been a congress person. They get paid radically less than other people with comparable levels of responsibility. I mean, a senator has more responsibility than anybody outside of government except maybe a couple dozen CEOs and whatnot, but they make like 0.01% as much as those other folks. I think fixating on whether it should be 0.01% as much as their peers in the private sector or 0.0098% as much is just a distraction. And worst case, it could make the situation where the vast majority of politicians have to be rich before they can run for office even worse. IMO our goal should be to pay them enough that they don't really have to worry about their personal finances, but not so much that they would go into it for the money. We don't want the people running our country desperate for money. That just makes them ultra susceptible to corruption and distracts them from what they are supposed to be doing. Seems to be it pretty much hits that mark currently. Also, keep in mind that most of them need to maintain two homes- one in DC and one in their home state- while they're in office. If you take that out, they aren't really making much.

Re: Should ordinary citizens, not Congress, decide all Congressional pay raises?(see

At first I thought this was going to be a Tea Party gimmick. But then I carefully read the OP, and it seems fair to me.

Re: Should ordinary citizens, not Congress, decide all Congressional pay raises?(see

I think congressional pay raises should be decided only by the voters in their district. The options on the ballot should "yes for raise", "no for no raise" and a "pay decrease". Preferably these pay votes should take happen once a year,preferable when ever there are local elections and ballot questions and initiatives.

Re: Should ordinary citizens, not Congress, decide all Congressional pay raises?(see

Luna Tick said:

Whenever Congress votes itself a raise, it's always a political hot potato. It does seem strange that they can vote themselves their own raises. Imagine at wherever you work if the employees could all get together and vote, "Say aye if you think everyone here deserves a 10 percent raise." I think it would be tough for such a place to stay in business. On the other hand, I won't say that Congress should never get a raise. All professions should have raises available. So here's my proposal.

Congress will be stripped of its ability to vote itself a pay raise. In its place, we would have a 12-person jury of ordinary citizens pledged to be impartial. Congress will select an advocate, it could be a member of Congress or it could be an attorney, to make the case for the raise and for how much. When Congress is done making its case, a rebuttal case will be put on by a qualified attorney. This attorney will argue that Congress does not deserve a raise and will cite the reasons why. Both the pro and the con advocates will be given rebuttal time to cross examine and put holes in the other person's case.

When all cases and rebuttals are done, the jury will deliberate. The jury is free to accept the full raise asked for or to reject it outright or to accept a lesser amount. It's acceptable for the jury to decide, "They asked for 10 percent; we're giving them 3 percent." In order for a raise to go into law, 9 of 12 jurors have to vote for it.

This system would get rid of a political hot potato issue and would empower ordinary citizens while offering Congress the possibility to get raises. What do you think? Vote on whether you think this plan would be better than how we currently do it.

Click to expand...

I'd be fine with this. Though I think jamesrages idea would be better. I would also go further and state that no one in Congress or the Senate should be allowed to own or make any other money outside of what they get via thier pay for being in Congress or on the Senate. This way that income would be thier only source of money and it would be much easier to find out if someone is taking a bribe. If thier total assets is > than thier income vs how long they have been in office then something is obviously happening that shouldn't be happening. And yes, the same should apply to judges and the presidency. Before GWB became President he was rich but not stinking rich. Now however he is stinking rich, he obviously made some decisions that made his ability to make money more easy/profitable.

Re: Should ordinary citizens, not Congress, decide all Congressional pay raises?(see

I can't remember who it was now, but there was some story about a senator whose secretary had written down his personal bank account number wrong on his direct deposit form and he didn't get paid at all for 9 years or something before his accountant noticed... I don't think this would have the impact you guys might be looking for. At least it would only have an impact on the tiny fraction of them that aren't 1%ers.

Re: Should ordinary citizens, not Congress, decide all Congressional pay raises?(see

Maybe we should eliminate salaries altogether, public and private, and go the ultimate free-market route... tips.

Re: Should ordinary citizens, not Congress, decide all Congressional pay raises?(see

They shouldn't be paid at all. They are public servants and weren't supposed to be paid for it as its a public service that they are doing to serve the country. They are supposed to have jobs and what they do isn't supposed to be one.

Re: Should ordinary citizens, not Congress, decide all Congressional pay raises?(see

Henrin said:

They shouldn't be paid at all. They are public servants and weren't supposed to be paid for it as its a public service that they are doing to serve the country. They are supposed to have jobs and what they do isn't supposed to be one.

Click to expand...

Have you ever worked in the public sector as a representative ? ....or a congressman ???
IMO, this is a full time task; the compensation must be appropriate.
As to the wealth of our congressmen, this bears investigation.
I trust neither the man on the street nor the people in Washington or Harrisburg to set salaries.
Then who ??

Re: Should ordinary citizens, not Congress, decide all Congressional pay raises?(see

Luna Tick said:

Whenever Congress votes itself a raise, it's always a political hot potato. It does seem strange that they can vote themselves their own raises. Imagine at wherever you work if the employees could all get together and vote, "Say aye if you think everyone here deserves a 10 percent raise." I think it would be tough for such a place to stay in business. On the other hand, I won't say that Congress should never get a raise. All professions should have raises available. So here's my proposal.

Congress will be stripped of its ability to vote itself a pay raise. In its place, we would have a 12-person jury of ordinary citizens pledged to be impartial. Congress will select an advocate, it could be a member of Congress or it could be an attorney, to make the case for the raise and for how much. When Congress is done making its case, a rebuttal case will be put on by a qualified attorney. This attorney will argue that Congress does not deserve a raise and will cite the reasons why. Both the pro and the con advocates will be given rebuttal time to cross examine and put holes in the other person's case.

When all cases and rebuttals are done, the jury will deliberate. The jury is free to accept the full raise asked for or to reject it outright or to accept a lesser amount. It's acceptable for the jury to decide, "They asked for 10 percent; we're giving them 3 percent." In order for a raise to go into law, 9 of 12 jurors have to vote for it.

This system would get rid of a political hot potato issue and would empower ordinary citizens while offering Congress the possibility to get raises. What do you think? Vote on whether you think this plan would be better than how we currently do it.

Click to expand...

It will take a constitutional amendment.

Re: Should ordinary citizens, not Congress, decide all Congressional pay raises?(see

I have to go with "OTHER" on this.....

Congress should be a PART-TIME JOB for which the individuals serving are not paid from the Federal Treasury to begin with. It's an HONOR to serve in either of those bodies, and it should not be seen as a career but rather as a short-term privilege. If an individual state wants to pay its representatives, let THEM decide what the payment should be and take it from their own coffers.

Re: Should ordinary citizens, not Congress, decide all Congressional pay raises?(see

That would cost millions upon millions of dollars. The simpler action would be to treat raises like a constitutional amendment and put it to the states.

Re: Should ordinary citizens, not Congress, decide all Congressional pay raises?(see

salary : give them the average US salary, and let them purchase their health insurance on the "free" market. once fired, they can COBRA their plan.

pension : nah. give them some lousy 401k and SS. when they reach the retirement age of 70+ that most of the younger workers are going to have to deal with, that is.

job security : they should be laid off as tax revenue falls. if it rises again, they can be hired back as independent contractors with no benefits.

vacation : 13 days (earned over the course of the year). once laid off and hired back as independent contractors, 0 days.




result of my plan : we would see the first congressional union form.

Re: Should ordinary citizens, not Congress, decide all Congressional pay raises?(see

Treat them as all other federal employees in regard to raises, health insurance and pensions. If they can't stay in office long enough to get vested in the pension plan, then they would not get a pension from the federal system.

Re: Should ordinary citizens, not Congress, decide all Congressional pay raises?(see

teamosil said:

To be honest, I find all the stuff about Congress's salaries to be missing the mark. They don't really care how much they get paid. Virtually all of them were making more money before they came to Congress and every single one of them could get 10 or even 1,000 times as much working somewhere else now that they have been a congress person. They get paid radically less than other people with comparable levels of responsibility. I mean, a senator has more responsibility than anybody outside of government except maybe a couple dozen CEOs and whatnot, but they make like 0.01% as much as those other folks. I think fixating on whether it should be 0.01% as much as their peers in the private sector or 0.0098% as much is just a distraction. And worst case, it could make the situation where the vast majority of politicians have to be rich before they can run for office even worse. IMO our goal should be to pay them enough that they don't really have to worry about their personal finances, but not so much that they would go into it for the money. We don't want the people running our country desperate for money. That just makes them ultra susceptible to corruption and distracts them from what they are supposed to be doing. Seems to be it pretty much hits that mark currently. Also, keep in mind that most of them need to maintain two homes- one in DC and one in their home state- while they're in office. If you take that out, they aren't really making much.

Click to expand...

As these people move up the political ladder they get wealthier and more importantly their influence grows which not only benefits them but their family and extended family. I like the fact that these people could be making much more money doing something else. I wish that would force more of them to leave office sooner. Do you really think all of these career politicians aren't getting greatly enriched by staying in office? I care how much they get paid because it is not only the salaries but they get reimbursed for a lot of expenses. I would love to see a balance sheet of how much it takes to support an average Senator. These guys have lots of privileges. If lower salaries would chase more of them from office then let's do it.

Re: Should ordinary citizens, not Congress, decide all Congressional pay raises?(see

Luna Tick said:

Whenever Congress votes itself a raise, it's always a political hot potato. It does seem strange that they can vote themselves their own raises. Imagine at wherever you work if the employees could all get together and vote, "Say aye if you think everyone here deserves a 10 percent raise." I think it would be tough for such a place to stay in business. On the other hand, I won't say that Congress should never get a raise. All professions should have raises available. So here's my proposal.

Congress will be stripped of its ability to vote itself a pay raise. In its place, we would have a 12-person jury of ordinary citizens pledged to be impartial. Congress will select an advocate, it could be a member of Congress or it could be an attorney, to make the case for the raise and for how much. When Congress is done making its case, a rebuttal case will be put on by a qualified attorney. This attorney will argue that Congress does not deserve a raise and will cite the reasons why. Both the pro and the con advocates will be given rebuttal time to cross examine and put holes in the other person's case.

When all cases and rebuttals are done, the jury will deliberate. The jury is free to accept the full raise asked for or to reject it outright or to accept a lesser amount. It's acceptable for the jury to decide, "They asked for 10 percent; we're giving them 3 percent." In order for a raise to go into law, 9 of 12 jurors have to vote for it.

This system would get rid of a political hot potato issue and would empower ordinary citizens while offering Congress the possibility to get raises. What do you think? Vote on whether you think this plan would be better than how we currently do it.

Click to expand...

No. This 12-person committee of ordinary citizens would quickly be beholdin' to various congressmen for one thing or another...just like the people who negotiate on behalf of the taxpayers with public employee unions. Congressmen should be restricted by law to a certain percentage raise within certain timeframes; i.e., COLA every four years with the % given based on COLA change from Year 3 to Year 4. Frankly, with all the perks they get, I think their salaries should be frozen for ten years.

Re: Should ordinary citizens, not Congress, decide all Congressional pay raises?(see

On the surface, Tigger's congressional pay plan appears to be a good idea, although I would consider an automatic annual cost of living increase for these sluggs.

Oh my!.....Did I just refer to congress as "sluggs"?.....Please allow me to rephrase this.....Sluggs, with a few exceptions.(very few)

The wonderful thing about Tiggers Is Tiggers are wonderful chaps
They're loaded with vim and vigor They love to leap in your laps
They're jumpy, bumpy, clumpy, thumpy Fun, fun, fun, fun, fun
But the most wonderful thing about Tiggers is I'm the only one

Click to expand...

(I think Tiggers are cute)

Re: Should ordinary citizens, not Congress, decide all Congressional pay raises?(see

Luna Tick said:

Whenever Congress votes itself a raise, it's always a political hot potato. It does seem strange that they can vote themselves their own raises. Imagine at wherever you work if the employees could all get together and vote, "Say aye if you think everyone here deserves a 10 percent raise." I think it would be tough for such a place to stay in business. On the other hand, I won't say that Congress should never get a raise. All professions should have raises available. So here's my proposal.

Congress will be stripped of its ability to vote itself a pay raise. In its place, we would have a 12-person jury of ordinary citizens pledged to be impartial. Congress will select an advocate, it could be a member of Congress or it could be an attorney, to make the case for the raise and for how much. When Congress is done making its case, a rebuttal case will be put on by a qualified attorney. This attorney will argue that Congress does not deserve a raise and will cite the reasons why. Both the pro and the con advocates will be given rebuttal time to cross examine and put holes in the other person's case.

When all cases and rebuttals are done, the jury will deliberate. The jury is free to accept the full raise asked for or to reject it outright or to accept a lesser amount. It's acceptable for the jury to decide, "They asked for 10 percent; we're giving them 3 percent." In order for a raise to go into law, 9 of 12 jurors have to vote for it.

This system would get rid of a political hot potato issue and would empower ordinary citizens while offering Congress the possibility to get raises. What do you think? Vote on whether you think this plan would be better than how we currently do it.

Click to expand...

To be correct, Congress does not vote itself a raise. The 27th amendment forbids it. Congress gets COLA raises automatically unless they vote to reject them. They rejected in 10 and 11.

Congress can only vote the next congress a raise.

Re: Should ordinary citizens, not Congress, decide all Congressional pay raises?(see

MaggieD said:

No. This 12-person committee of ordinary citizens would quickly be beholdin' to various congressmen for one thing or another...just like the people who negotiate on behalf of the taxpayers with public employee unions. Congressmen should be restricted by law to a certain percentage raise within certain timeframes; i.e., COLA every four years with the % given based on COLA change from Year 3 to Year 4. Frankly, with all the perks they get, I think their salaries should be frozen for ten years.

Click to expand...

Since Luna used the term "Jury" I assumed that the people that were in the jury would be selected just like a regular jury is selected. IE same rules apply. That way no hanky panky could be done.

Re: Should ordinary citizens, not Congress, decide all Congressional pay raises?(see

Empirica said:

On the surface, Tigger's congressional pay plan appears to be a good idea, although I would consider an automatic annual cost of living increase for these sluggs.

Click to expand...

If that's what the individual state wanted to do, that would be fine by me. My idea is to return the United States Congress to a body that is comprised on AMATEUR legislators, not the professionals that currently occupy the seats. Congressman was never intended to be a career aspiration. It was intended to be something that people were chosen to do because of their qualities for a short period of time.

Empirica said:

(I think Tiggers are cute)

Click to expand...

:3oops:

Re: Should ordinary citizens, not Congress, decide all Congressional pay raises?(see

teamosil said:

To be honest, I find all the stuff about Congress's salaries to be missing the mark. They don't really care how much they get paid. Virtually all of them were making more money before they came to Congress and every single one of them could get 10 or even 1,000 times as much working somewhere else now that they have been a congress person. They get paid radically less than other people with comparable levels of responsibility. I mean, a senator has more responsibility than anybody outside of government except maybe a couple dozen CEOs and whatnot, but they make like 0.01% as much as those other folks. I think fixating on whether it should be 0.01% as much as their peers in the private sector or 0.0098% as much is just a distraction. And worst case, it could make the situation where the vast majority of politicians have to be rich before they can run for office even worse. IMO our goal should be to pay them enough that they don't really have to worry about their personal finances, but not so much that they would go into it for the money. We don't want the people running our country desperate for money. That just makes them ultra susceptible to corruption and distracts them from what they are supposed to be doing. Seems to be it pretty much hits that mark currently. Also, keep in mind that most of them need to maintain two homes- one in DC and one in their home state- while they're in office. If you take that out, they aren't really making much.

Click to expand...

The pay doesn't come from their tenure in Congress. It comes from passing a few "favorable" laws and when they retire Congress they somehow get a nice, fat paying, do nothing VP position in some company that benefited from the legislation passed.

Re: Should ordinary citizens, not Congress, decide all Congressional pay raises?(see

Ikari said:

The pay doesn't come from their tenure in Congress. It comes from passing a few "favorable" laws and when they retire Congress they somehow get a nice, fat paying, do nothing VP position in some company that benefited from the legislation passed.

Click to expand...

Not paying them, or allowing citizens to vote (which would almost always mean not paying them), sounds good, but would only make matters worse.

No, the better and more thoroughly thought out answer is to pay them a decent salary and eliminate the stuff like this on the other end. Take away the OUTSIDE influence of money completely.

Re: Should ordinary citizens, not Congress, decide all Congressional pay raises?(see

earthworm said:

Have you ever worked in the public sector as a representative ? ....or a congressman ???
IMO, this is a full time task; the compensation must be appropriate.
As to the wealth of our congressmen, this bears investigation.
I trust neither the man on the street nor the people in Washington or Harrisburg to set salaries.
Then who ??

Click to expand...

It wasn't meant to be full time job with a full schedule of things to do. Its part of that whole bothersome limited government business.

Re: Should ordinary citizens, not Congress, decide all Congressional pay raises?(see

jambalaya said:

I like the fact that these people could be making much more money doing something else.

Click to expand...

I like that too, but what I would not like is lowering the compensation to the point where basically non-rich people couldn't afford to do it.

jambalaya said:

I wish that would force more of them to leave office sooner.

Click to expand...

That is a very bad idea. Politicians of all political leanings are much more effective the longer they are in office. Policy making is extremely complicated stuff. To be able to legislate responsibly you need to assemble a team of really smart people covering an enormous range of areas of expertise in everything from pesticides to the foreign policy of Azerbaijan to specific weapons technology to various educational techniques. You need to sufficiently master those areas to the point where you have a well thought out position on each issue. That alone takes many years. On top of that, you need to get a sense of how the system works and how to strategically pursue your objectives. You need to develop connections with other legislators on all sides of various issues, you need to develop enough respect from your colleagues that they pay attention when you take a position, you need to develop connections with your constituents, etc. If we were just to end up with a bunch of first timers it would be a total disaster. Destabilizing, less intelligent policy, etc. What do you think would be gained by that?

jambalaya said:

Do you really think all of these career politicians aren't getting greatly enriched by staying in office? I care how much they get paid because it is not only the salaries but they get reimbursed for a lot of expenses. I would love to see a balance sheet of how much it takes to support an average Senator. These guys have lots of privileges.

Click to expand...

If they're getting rich by being in office it has nothing to do with their actual compensation or expense reports or whatever. Again, that's a tiny fraction of what they could make in the private sector and really it isn't much more than it takes to maintain a second home in another city and all that.

Money just isn't their motivation. If that was their goal, there are much easier ways to make much more money. They're motivated by other things. Some by the power, some by a sense of moral duty, some by the fame and ego, but money just isn't really on the list except in some very rare cases I think.

Re: Should ordinary citizens, not Congress, decide all Congressional pay raises?(see

Ikari said:

The pay doesn't come from their tenure in Congress. It comes from passing a few "favorable" laws and when they retire Congress they somehow get a nice, fat paying, do nothing VP position in some company that benefited from the legislation passed.

Click to expand...

Maybe. I actually think that happens more often at the staffer level. A key congressional staffer writes a bill or puts a change in somewhere and then gets basically paid out after in the form of a job. That does happen. For actual congresspeople, I think that is very rare. They are watched much more closely and it becomes a big media event when stuff like that happens. Not to say it never happens, but I think that is very rare.

What is more common is that they get hired by some kind of firm that wants two things- their connections and to be able to say that they have former congresspeople on staff. For example, a law firm that does a lot of government relations work will pay a ton for somebody that can call up other representatives personally and actually get through right to them, and they can attract clients way more easily if they can say they have somebody like that.