Should we make all Congressional salaries and pensions $0?

I think only those who are willing to starve or who are already independently wealthy should be elected officials. Who is with me?

The elite ruling the peasants doesn't sound like the enlightenment experiment that spawned the USA worked! I'd rather go for a good salary, no more than three four times the average wage (but with little or no expenses.) Anyone not a millionaire who becomes a millionaire in office must be investigated till the pips squeak

No, the real issue in American politics isn't Congressional Wages, it's Campaign Finance, fix that and a lot of problems will fix themselves.

But Campaign Finance Reform is the biggest obstacle to better governance and anyone who supports the lie, the ridiculous notion that money = speech, has asked and begged for the current situation the country finds itself in.

Citizens United was the full and open legalization of corruption in the United States and it will probably remain a stain and will destroy America from within because a decent chunk of the country, most of whom by the way will make less money in their lifetime than some corporations and billionaires will give to a single politician in a single election cycle, believes that lie too.

CriticalThought said:

I think only those who are willing to starve or who are already independently wealthy should be elected officials. Who is with me?

Click to expand...

Red:
Independently wealthy prior to assuming an elected office? No.

Wealthy enough, or possessed of an income source, whereby an expense stipend to cover their costs of serving as elected representative is sufficient for them and their families to continue living whatever lifestyle they live upon their swearing in? Yes.

CriticalThought said:

I think only those who are willing to starve or who are already independently wealthy should be elected officials. Who is with me?

Click to expand...

We're almost there with congress full of millionaires. I say kick out all the millionaires, vote them out and replace them with billionaires, they're much more in touch with the average american.

Jetboogieman said:

No, the real issue in American politics isn't Congressional Wages, it's Campaign Finance, fix that and a lot of problems will fix themselves.

But Campaign Finance Reform is the biggest obstacle to better governance and anyone who supports the lie, the ridiculous notion that money = speech, has asked and begged for the current situation the country finds itself in.

Citizens United was the full and open legalization of corruption in the United States and it will probably remain a stain and will destroy America from within because a decent chunk of the country, most of whom by the way will make less money in their lifetime than some corporations and billionaires will give to a single politician in a single election cycle, believes that lie too.

Click to expand...

Red:
Can't argue with that.


Blue:
What? Are you alluding to honoraria or contributions?

Honoraria:

• 50 STATE CHART: HONORARIUM RESTRICTIONS
• House and Senate: Prohibition on Honoraria
  • House Rules
• Judiciary: Outside Earned Income, Honoraria, and Employment
• General Executive Branch Personnel: Federal Government Ethics Policies
  • Presidential Appointees: Limitations on Outside Income
• Outside Employment, “Moonlighting,” by Federal Executive Branch Employees

Contributions:

• Federal election law
• Campaign Finance Law: An Analysis of Key Issues, Recent Developments, and Constitutional Considerations for Legislation
• H.R.1 - For the People Act of 2019

ETA:
Oh, I think, given your subsequent citation of Citizens United, you mean contributions.

CriticalThought said:

I think only those who are willing to starve or who are already independently wealthy should be elected officials. Who is with me?

Click to expand...

My idea has been to set a certain amount, say $4 trillion. From that Congress has to fund all the basic functions of government and whatever pork/pet projects they desire. Whatever's left over is theirs for salaries, expenses, etc.

bongsaway said:

We're almost there with congress full of millionaires. I say kick out all the millionaires, vote them out and replace them with billionaires, they're much more in touch with the average american.

Click to expand...

I realize your remark is sarcastic.

As for there being many millionaires in Congress, wel, that's unsurprising to the point of being expected. Generally, one needs to be successful at something to obtain voters' approbation. One quality most successful people have is that of being comfortable, if not "filthy rich" (most members of Congress aren't "filthy rich."), so it stands to reason that most Congresspersons will be comfortable.

Off-Topic:
You may find this interesting:

• Some say 'millionaire is the new middle class'—here's how many Americans are actually worth $1 million
  • If one lives in a city or close-in 'burb, it's not all that uncommon to have $1M in net worth. For instance, in DC, though there are some homes (detached house, row house/duplex, or flat) valued below $500K, most aren't. Work for 30 years at a "normal paying" job (career-started 30 years ago -- ~$30K/year; career-ended recently -- ~$120K), save "normally" for retirement, and one's sure to have amassed $1M+ in net worth.
    
    Obviously, if one follows the same pattern in lower cost-of-living (COL) areas, one's net worth may be lower, but then as the COL is lower, that one hasn't reached the $1M+ mark may be immaterial.

Manc Skipper said:

The elite ruling the peasants doesn't sound like the enlightenment experiment that spawned the USA worked! I'd rather go for a good salary, no more than three four times the average wage (but with little or no expenses.) Anyone not a millionaire who becomes a millionaire in office must be investigated till the pips squeak

Click to expand...

Has there ever been a civilization or sovereignty modeled any other way?

Who are "the elite?" Though there are exceptions, mostly they're:

• People who're intellectually successful
  • Well educated --> meaning they've been taught a pretty extensive amount of education and they mastered the content they were taught. The result of that is that such folks can analyze things comprehensively, accurately, germanely and quickly. That doesn't mean they're infallible; it means they're better than most folks at doing the same thing.
• People who're professionally successful
  • Subject matter --> meaning they've repeatedly and consistently shown they are very, very knowledgeable in a given discipline and very knowledgeable in the "adjacent" disciplines. They get that way by applying whatever it is they've taught. (see above)
  • Financial --> meaning that they made a decent living working in whatever discipline they're expert. This doesn't mean they're earning "one-percenter" money, but it does mean that by the time they've been "at it" for a decade or so, they're earning more than the average or median income for their field. Usually, financially successful also means one has sagely husbanded one's pecuniary resources.
• People who're socially successful
  • This is pretty straightforward; they're folks who move ably through society. They, one way or another, garner people's affection.

With "elite" explained, it becomes quite easy to see why elite folks are who run governments and countries: the alternative is not only pregnant with problems, but fraught with them; it just makes no damn sense.

What sense is there in a nation's being managed and administered by people who don't know much about much, haven't achieved much, and are neither known by nor liked by many? None!

It's normally elite people who ascend to high public offices for the same reason sighted people help blind ones across the street, and not the other way round. But for some reason, in the US, people argue that it's a good idea for "the blind" to lead "the blind" and "the sighted." Well, as a "sighted" person, I'm not following a "blind" man/woman anywhere. Whoever's running things had better have better "vision" than I do.

Jetboogieman said:

No, the real issue in American politics isn't Congressional Wages, it's Campaign Finance, fix that and a lot of problems will fix themselves.

But Campaign Finance Reform is the biggest obstacle to better governance and anyone who supports the lie, the ridiculous notion that money = speech, has asked and begged for the current situation the country finds itself in.

Citizens United was the full and open legalization of corruption in the United States and it will probably remain a stain and will destroy America from within because a decent chunk of the country, most of whom by the way will make less money in their lifetime than some corporations and billionaires will give to a single politician in a single election cycle, believes that lie too.

Click to expand...

:roll: The opinion of someone who isn’t old enough to remember before citizens united

I think the premise of this thread is ignoring a certain constitutional amendment.

The 27th amendment

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened

Click to expand...

Xelor said:

I realize your remark is sarcastic.

1 of 3 billionaires is just as out of touch as the other two.
-- Xelor adaptation of an aphorism about Trump-supporters.
​

As for there being many millionaires in Congress, wel, that's unsurprising to the point of being expected. Generally, one needs to be successful at something to obtain voters' approbation. One quality most successful people have is that of being comfortable, if not "filthy rich" (most members of Congress aren't "filthy rich."), so it stands to reason that most Congresspersons will be comfortable.

Off-Topic:
You may find this interesting:

• Some say 'millionaire is the new middle class'—here's how many Americans are actually worth $1 million
  • If one lives in a city or close-in 'burb, it's not all that uncommon to have $1M in net worth. For instance, in DC, though there are some homes (detached house, row house/duplex, or flat) valued below $500K, most aren't. Work for 30 years at a "normal paying" job (career-started 30 years ago -- ~$30K/year; career-ended recently -- ~$120K), save "normally" for retirement, and one's sure to have amassed $1M+ in net worth.
    
    Obviously, if one follows the same pattern in lower cost-of-living (COL) areas, one's net worth may be lower, but then as the COL is lower, that one hasn't reached the $1M+ mark may be immaterial.

Click to expand...

Well that's pretty sad, if only ten percent of the population in america is considered middle class. To my understanding the founding fathers actually set up the government with the intention that well to do folks would run our government. Their reasoning, they would make better decisions for the average person since they themselves didn't need the money. Grand thinking for the day, just not today. It's one of the reasons I feel our constitution needs an update.

Xelor said:

I realize your remark is sarcastic.

1 of 3 billionaires is just as out of touch as the other two.
-- Xelor adaptation of an aphorism about Trump-supporters.
​

As for there being many millionaires in Congress, wel, that's unsurprising to the point of being expected. Generally, one needs to be successful at something to obtain voters' approbation. One quality most successful people have is that of being comfortable, if not "filthy rich" (most members of Congress aren't "filthy rich."), so it stands to reason that most Congresspersons will be comfortable.

Off-Topic:
You may find this interesting:

• Some say 'millionaire is the new middle class'—here's how many Americans are actually worth $1 million
  • If one lives in a city or close-in 'burb, it's not all that uncommon to have $1M in net worth. For instance, in DC, though there are some homes (detached house, row house/duplex, or flat) valued below $500K, most aren't. Work for 30 years at a "normal paying" job (career-started 30 years ago -- ~$30K/year; career-ended recently -- ~$120K), save "normally" for retirement, and one's sure to have amassed $1M+ in net worth.
    
    Obviously, if one follows the same pattern in lower cost-of-living (COL) areas, one's net worth may be lower, but then as the COL is lower, that one hasn't reached the $1M+ mark may be immaterial.

bongsaway said:

Well that's pretty sad, if only ten percent of the population in america is considered middle class. To my understanding the founding fathers actually set up the government with the intention that well to do folks would run our government. Their reasoning, they would make better decisions for the average person since they themselves didn't need the money. Grand thinking for the day, just not today. It's one of the reasons I feel our constitution needs an update.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Red:
The content I shared and linked-to indicates that having a million dollars of net worth only these days qualifies one as financially middle class, whereas in the past, wealth at that level made one financially upper class. Nothing in that content or my remarks (above) indicates or intimates one million dollars in net worth is the minimum net worth to be middle class.


Blue:
As go the Founders' intents, what they intended was that landed citizens be who legislate. AFAIK, they didn't impose a similar restriction on who could administer the government. The main impetus for that was their overall vision of the US as a nation wherein entrepreneurs thrive sans the encumbrances of peerage and religion. In 18th century, land ownership was central to entrepreneurship -- be it as a merchant or as a farmer -- and, given the vision, frankly, it was both germane and prudent to constrain legislative authority to landowners.

I think the later legislators who removed the land ownership requirement were right to do so; however, I think they goofed by not requiring that legislators own some sort of business. Ideally, IMO, they'd have stipulated that the firm be one of some stripe that aligns with the comparative advantage enjoyed the US economy. In the late 19th and 20th century, that'd have meant some kind of "low tech" manufacturing or retail business, whereas now it means "high tech" manufacturing, retail, or service (medicine, law, other professional services, utilities, telecom, IT services, provision, etc.) firms.


Pink:
I agree there are some elements of it that need updating.

CriticalThought said:

Should we make all Congressional salaries and pensions $0?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

People should be paid for their work even if it is "Public Service".
But there is no reason we should incentivize longevity in public service and therefore should remove the ability to accrue time towards or retire from public service.