In the history books when they discuss the hundreds or thousands of small cuts that eventually killed America, Mike Johnson may very well be one of the most prominent captioned photos.
Well then that’s not capitalism.
Tbh idk why people think capitalism is a good thing. It’s just feudalism with corporations.
How about this:
We pay politicians in “X times the minimum wage”; for the sake of this example I’ll say 30x the minimum wage (too much? Too little? I don’t know, that’s not important rn)
The thing is, they can’t change this number, at all. The only way they can increase their salaries is to increase the minimum wage.
pretty sure most of them are millionaires, because the billionaire donors are giving them money, in other forms. even with those restrictions, they get millions from the billionaires in thier pockets. Thats why Dinos are fighting just as hard to keep that way.
Also politicians wouldn’t exactly be less corruptible if they were poorer.
Pay them 5 million per year for all I care so long as they actually represent the people and not private interest groups, are not currupt, and are some of the best people for the job. And that would be an incredibility good deal.
People can be wealthy and not totally out of touch if they make an effort to listen to people
Salary will have unintended consequences.
Why would anyone choose that job unless they were already very wealthy?
People who want to enact change. You can find plenty of those they just don’t have any visibility because money.
I think everyone wants to “enact change”.
The problem is, the people with the requisite skills can earn much more than $60k doing something else.
Alternatively, give all workers the same benefits politicians get.
I thought after citizens united they represent corporations not us
$1000 deductible?? i wish
I was on private health insurance for a couple of years. My premium was over $300 a month and my deductible was $7000. I had looked for an ACA policy on the government website but something with the same level of deductible was closer to $1000 a month. What really sucked is that my private policy did not qualify for the exemption from the fine you had to pay for not having health insurance. Somehow I never had to pay the fine, I dunno why not. I’m sure my policy also would have fucked me if I’d ever tried to collect on it, but fortunately I was completely healthy during that stretch.
$300/month 😂😭😢😐
OP has no idea what health insurance cost these days.
Nor do international members, care to share?
More like $1000+ a month for a policy with a $7000+ annual deductible. If you’re lucky and have a job with subsidized health insurance, it’s much more reasonable. I’m a school bus driver and have excellent health insurance (which is rare for school bus drivers); I pay $129 a month while the district pays the rest and I have essentially no deductible.
I guess the idea of paying them well is that they can’t be bought with bribes. Then again, when has any wealthy person ever been satisfied.
Honestly, there’s a load of satisfied wealthy people - you just don’t hear about them because, well, there’s literally nothing to report about them.
If the job didn’t pay a salary, the only people who could do the job would be the rich who don’t need a salary, or those willing to accept bribes.
If you make the salary too low, it will discourage anybody who can make a better living doing something else. And, if the people doing it don’t think they’re being paid what they’re really worth, they’re more likely to take bribes or “donations” to boost their salary back up to what it should be.
Really, the salary should be high. It should be a job that people who are really qualified will want to do. It should be one where you have no need to take a bribe because you’re already doing so well, and you’d be afraid of throwing away such a well compensated job.
I wouldn’t say it’s so that they can’t be bought, so much as so they don’t have to be bought. It’s part of the reason they haven’t voted for a pay raise and so long. Their owners don’t want them to have other options.
Lawmakers don’t vote for their pay raises, they don’t need to. The increases were made automatic in 1989. Even with the annual increases, their pay is nothing compared to what they can make from insider information and contributions from anonymous PACs. They can be bought, government salary just can’t compete with dark money.
That isn’t quite accurate. Congress hasn’t gotten a pay raise since 2009. Because they vote against giving themselves one.
Ah, I’d read they didn’t have to vote to get a pay raise. Didn’t see that they had been actively voting against it. But who needs a raise when you know you’ll get waaay more money from corps and special interest groups? Heck, they’ll even write the bills they want passed for you, so you don’t even have to work hard.
Ah, that makes sense.
They also carry a hell of a lot more responsibility than the average American worker. Is be in favor of a party raise along with restricting other income streams like stock investments.
Let’s also start forcing them to work forty hours.
300 a month and a thousand dollar deductible?!?!
where the fuck is that deal, it’s like 8k deductible and 600 a month
Oh man I’m sorry
I get the idea behind it, but this very much would backfire in that only the rich could become representation. Remember they made it a rule that they aren’t allowed to sleep in their office while in D.C., and 60k not only won’t afford a place in D.C, it most definitely won’t allow for someone to have a home near their constituents AND D.C.
So we would end up with just having first or second sons of oligarchs, 1 trained to run the companies, the other trained to represent their families best interests.
Or, and hear me out in this one, if the average is not sustainable they would need to raise the average or lower costs until a balance was reached. By forcing them to play by the very rules that are writing, there is an incentive to make them fair.
While this may not be there exact way too achieve that, the goal is still a good one to work towards.
We don’t need the entire country to have a second home in DC and to be resistant to bribes.
Congress should make good enough money that they don’t need to invest in the stock market and they don’t care about negligible bribes. Bigger bribes are theoretically easier to catch in the legal system and/or public accountability.
if the average is not sustainable they would need to raise the average or lower costs until a balance was reached
I think you misunderstood what you’re responding to. This would create a situation where being in politics is only not sustainable for people of average means. People who are already independently wealthy would have no trouble at all sustaining themselves on an average salary and have zero (0) incentive to do anything to make life easier for you or I.
The problem isn’t that people in Congress get paid a decent wage. The problem is they have so much money from their families, from their businesses, and/or from lobbyists that they’re more or less totally divorced from what life is like for most people
And how is that supposed to work ? You can’t fix the healthcare care system or economy in a day, so non wealthy people would still struggle to live as politicians whilst those changes are being worked on, meaning there’s little motivation for them to join politics, and independently wealthy people who are just in it for the power wouldn’t give a fuck about being badly paid. Look at Trump. He doesn’t even take a salary, because he’s corrupt and wealthy enough to not need it, so his salary being low would matter fuck all to him and other corrupt pieces of crap like him.
The problem is, representatives and senators don’t live average lifestyles. They need to pay for two residences, one of which is in one of the most expensive metro areas in the country. Then the constant transit costs between the two. They also pay their staff out of their own pocket if I remember correctly.
Truth is they need to be paid much more. With 100% of salary in retirement. And they need to be barred from any kind of employment after.
Hear me out, maybe we could build some sort of large building/s with a lot of small houses in them for them to live in while in DC. The government could even give them some sort of vouchers that helps them pay the rent or the buildings could just be owned by the government.
There’s also value in it being decentralized.
Six of one, half dozen the other.
You provide housing directly, or money for them to choose housing themselves. Seems a distinction without a difference.
I get the idea behind it, but this very much would backfire in that only the rich could become representation.
Not only the rich but also the corrupt that would then sell their voice to the highest bidder.
Good thing neither of those are the case in the current system!
The point is, these changes wouldn’t help any of those things.
I agree, and maybe not on their own, but combined with other changes, maybe. Eg. Build dorms and have them stay there when in DC, owned and paid by the state.
I’d like to see draconian controls and transparency on their finances during their time serving and a few years into it.
Well that’s easy then. Federally owned dorm housing for congress.
There are easy solutions to that problem. $60k plus cost of living stipends for the two homes, which can’t be spent on anything else, and only modest homes are eligible.
For people complaining about the cost of living to cover in DC, build them some public housing barracks they can stay in so they have that covered.
Agreed, but mostly why would a rep not be able to sleep on their office and return home? That’s rediculous
Some of the poorer reps were doing that and Congress decided they didn’t like it.
That’s BS, you could definitely afford to live there, it’d just be in a shithole. Which is exactly the point.
Find me 1 place to stay in D.C. and the ability to live in any other city on top which is required. Y near every place you are going to represent. “That’s BS”.
How many people do you know making $60k per year that maintain two homes in cities a thousand miles apart,and frequently travel between them?
Some state legislatures already do stuff like this. Full time job for a few months out of the year that pays like $40k.
The people who run for office are the people who can afford to.
The idea behind a high salary for representatives is that they don’t need to take on extra money from lobbyists to survive. Keep the salaries, but make bribery illegal again and things will get better. Make the salaries low AND get the money out of politics and you’ll only get rich people becoming politicians. Oh and term limits should be a thing.
Bribery is still illegal. But it’s not a “bribe” unless it’s paid directly to the politician in exchange for something specific (quid pro quo). So you just need to obfuscate that deal enough so that you can’t prove it’s a bribe, in the legal sense. (SuperPACs, etc).
Tbf yes, that’s what I meant. The legal form of bribery, shouldn’t be.
99% of a lawyers job is to find loopholes in the law.
Just pay well in advance of whatever you ask for and it’s fine apparently
