Georgia Congressman whines about his measly $174,000 Salary

[SEIndSAM]

He should try living on what the average person makes. If the cost of Obamacare is too much for them, how to they expect us to make it??

Congressman laments $172,000 salary - - MSN Money

 

[Lex Concord]

While his phrasing could be better, I think his head is in the right place.

He is against the special exemptions for congress and congressional staffers; his point is that, while it may be tough for the staffers in the short run, they can, for the most part, walk over to K street and start making megabucks (meaning the healthcare costs/loss of stipends will no longer be an issue for them), while he will still be in congress making far less than they will; yet he is still against the exemptions.

Again, his wording makes his statement, out of context, seem completely out of step with the public at large, but his official stance is one that doesn't put congress critters and their ilk above us "little people". I interpret the use of the word stuck to relate to the fact that, as a congressman, he can't just put in two weeks and take a killer job; hopefully it's because he takes his duties in congress as a serious undertaking.

While, ideally, he would be pushing for ACA to be thrown in the dustbin of history (maybe he is, haven't looked that up), he is on the right side of this micro issue.

 

[Bummer]

I think each congressman should be given $2 million a year.

Wait. Hear me out.

I think that if they want ANYTHING, they should have to pay for it themselves. Aides? They can hire as many as they want at any pay level. After all, we gave 'em $2 million. An office? Same deal. Health care? Same. Retirement? Same. Pens, paper, stamps, a desk, and a chair? Same. Want to take a trip? Same. Work alone out of a room at the Y using a cheap laptop and email, then pocket the rest? I don't care as long as they get there for the votes.

If we did this we would save a few billion dollars a year on the cost of congress, plus we'd make them a whole lot more aware that their spending us into oblivion lessens the value of money as their buying power went down along side ours.

I also believe that they should not be allowed to benefit from any voted pay raise. Ever. Vote a raise, leave office next year, next guy gets more. Stay in ten terms and make the same money for all ten. Next guy gets more.

Bad idea? Come on. Do the math.

Never happen? Well, I never said it would, but I still think we'd come out a whole lot of money and responsibility ahead.

 

[Magneto]

They make a lot of money, but they spend a lot of money.

 

[Waveraider]

They make a lot of money, but they spend a lot of money.

are you endorsing Patrick Ewing for Congress? LOL!

 

[.452browning]

I'll take $174,000 a year and never complain. Heck I'll take a 1/3 of that and never complain.

 

[SSGSAD]

I'll take $174,000 a year and never complain. Heck I'll take a 1/3 of that and never complain.

AMEN, to THAT !!!!!

 

[CarmelHP]

I think each congressman should be given $2 million a year.

Wait. Hear me out.

I think that if they want ANYTHING, they should have to pay for it themselves. Aides? They can hire as many as they want at any pay level. After all, we gave 'em $2 million. An office? Same deal. Health care? Same. Retirement? Same. Pens, paper, stamps, a desk, and a chair? Same. Want to take a trip? Same. Work alone out of a room at the Y using a cheap laptop and email, then pocket the rest? I don't care as long as they get there for the votes.

If we did this we would save a few billion dollars a year on the cost of congress, plus we'd make them a whole lot more aware that their spending us into oblivion lessens the value of money as their buying power went down along side ours.

How's this qualitatively different than how it is run now? Offices get a fixed budget to spend. Have a geographically large district, too bad, make it stretch. Have a geographically small district, pay your staff large out of the savings.

 

[Bummer]

How's this qualitatively different than how it is run now? Offices get a fixed budget to spend. Have a geographically large district, too bad, make it stretch. Have a geographically small district, pay your staff large out of the savings.

Large districts get more than small. Further away gets more than close. (Specific details depend upon the item being funded. I just looked it up.)

Currently they don't get to keep what they save, so they are not encouraged to save.

I'm under the impression that there's a difference between $2 million and $7 to 10 million.

 

[CavMedic]

The biggest problem to me is that it is profitable to be a congressman. Why are they not.paid the same way the.military is? On a scale based on rank and time in service.

 

[CarmelHP]

Large districts get more than small. Further away gets more than close. (Specific details depend upon the item being funded. I just looked it up.)

Currently they don't get to keep what they save, so they are not encouraged to save.

I'm under the impression that there's a difference between $2 million and $7 to 10 million.

Since the average MRA is less than $1.5 million with very little variance between members, mostly due to franking costs, how does this save any money? Where are you getting $7 to 10 million? Senators, rather than Congressman, have budgets based on size of the state, but the largest Senate MRA is around $4 million.