HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The House and Senate shou...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 03:29 PM

 

The House and Senate should be paid by the hourly wage. Minimum wage.

For a month.

Then they'll fix the problem.

Any additional expenditures will be turned away. These people have to understand what it is like to live in poverty at a small wages.

Make living wage the law of the land.

53 replies, 3549 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 53 replies Author Time Post
Reply The House and Senate should be paid by the hourly wage. Minimum wage. (Original post)
Panasonic Nov 2012 OP
dchill Nov 2012 #1
kentuck Nov 2012 #2
donnasgirl Nov 2012 #11
former-republican Nov 2012 #16
SmileyRose Nov 2012 #40
byeya Nov 2012 #3
winterpark Nov 2012 #53
shawn703 Nov 2012 #4
mac56 Nov 2012 #14
Voice for Peace Nov 2012 #23
shawn703 Nov 2012 #33
Voice for Peace Nov 2012 #35
hobbit709 Nov 2012 #46
onenote Nov 2012 #49
Cleita Nov 2012 #5
GEOpix Nov 2012 #6
mac56 Nov 2012 #15
Voice for Peace Nov 2012 #7
Curmudgeoness Nov 2012 #18
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #8
SouthernLiberal Nov 2012 #9
SoCalNative Nov 2012 #31
onenote Nov 2012 #10
silverweb Nov 2012 #12
krakfiend Nov 2012 #13
former-republican Nov 2012 #17
Douglas Carpenter Nov 2012 #19
Voice for Peace Nov 2012 #24
Douglas Carpenter Nov 2012 #30
Voice for Peace Nov 2012 #34
krakfiend Nov 2012 #25
Incitatus Nov 2012 #20
AtheistCrusader Nov 2012 #21
NYC Liberal Nov 2012 #22
liberal_at_heart Nov 2012 #26
cali Nov 2012 #27
onenote Nov 2012 #41
madokie Nov 2012 #28
dembotoz Nov 2012 #29
former9thward Nov 2012 #32
bluethruandthru Nov 2012 #36
mac56 Nov 2012 #45
JDPriestly Nov 2012 #37
onethatcares Nov 2012 #38
KitSileya Nov 2012 #39
onenote Nov 2012 #42
KitSileya Nov 2012 #43
raccoon Nov 2012 #44
n2doc Nov 2012 #47
G_j Nov 2012 #48
Doctor_J Nov 2012 #51
Doctor_J Nov 2012 #50
mahina Nov 2012 #52

Response to Panasonic (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 03:32 PM

1. Actually, they ought to be on commission.

With regular performance reviews.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Panasonic (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 03:36 PM

2. Just pay them $50 per hour for the time they are in session...

I bet they would stop taking 4 days off per week and month-long vacations?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #2)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 05:54 PM

11. I Think

I think Congressmen should wear uniforms like NASCAR drivers so we could identify their corporate sponsors."
I am starting to think they are all the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to donnasgirl (Reply #11)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 06:14 PM

16. LOL

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to donnasgirl (Reply #11)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 06:23 AM

40. oldie but goodie

first time I heard that was Carlin in 1970 something. Still good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Panasonic (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 05:24 PM

3. Pay them for piece work.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to byeya (Reply #3)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 03:36 PM

53. No. Pay them hourly fed min wage. 1wk of paid vacay and dock them when they're out

campaigning on the taxpayers dimes. Just like the rest of us get when we have to go see a doctor for a sick child, spouse or ourselves. Or go to a parent teacher meeting, etc.
They make too much effin money and want to take everyone elses away

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Panasonic (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 05:29 PM

4. The drawback of course

Is that the only people in Congress would be very wealthy. Most would have to maintain two residences on minimum wage, not just one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shawn703 (Reply #4)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 06:13 PM

14. And that fact leads to the stock reply to this idea

which is, paying them less than they feel entitled to will make them susceptible to being bribed or influenced.

(As though they aren't already.)

I don't agree, of course, but I have had that thrown my way in response to a similar proposal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shawn703 (Reply #4)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 07:21 PM

23. members of congress could be housed in dormitories.

it's absurd how little work they do for the people who elected them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Voice for Peace (Reply #23)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 09:13 PM

33. Would you run for Congress if it paid only minimum wage?

Speaking for myself - supposing I was inclined to run for Congress in the first place - minimum wage and dormitory living space for myself, wife and four kids would kill that dream pretty quickly. I still have to maintain a residence in my district for one.

My thought is if you make compensation too low, the only people who will run are the people who are already wealthy and could care less what salary they receive. I would prefer to have less of those people and more of the people who need that paycheck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shawn703 (Reply #33)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 10:07 PM

35. I don't think minimum wage is adequate for anyone.

People with a certain net worth could serve if elected
but without additional compensation.

A decent living wage is all they need. The point is
not to make money or even to have a career but to
serve the public good for a limited number of years.

If that's not what they want to do nobody should
elect them.

I'm just dreaming, I know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shawn703 (Reply #4)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 08:56 AM

46. What's the average wealth of a congresscritter now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hobbit709 (Reply #46)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 11:44 AM

49. In 2009 the median net worth of a member of the House was around $750,000

meaning that half of the members of the House had a netw worth over that amount and half had a net worth under that amount. Many of those above the median were substantially above it, which means the "average" would be much higher. But median is the more appropriate measure. The net worth of members of the Senate is higher than that of House members by a decent margin. I've seen reports indicating that around 47 percent of members of the House have a net worth (which includes the equity they have in their homes) over $1 million, while 2/3 of Senate members top the $1 million net worth mark.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Panasonic (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 05:32 PM

5. Not all of them but how about the leadership?

Pay them for what they accomplish. In this case Boehner wouldn't make a cent because he's accomplished nothing either positive or negative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Panasonic (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 05:33 PM

6. Naaah...

They don't need the money now, and this would probably just entice them to steal more! (Errr, get more monetary support from their corporate "constituents").

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GEOpix (Reply #6)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 06:14 PM

15. Yup

See above.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Panasonic (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 05:36 PM

7. I am in favor of this. "Public Service"

In every arena where the public interest is affected,
lawmakers should be equally compensated and treated.

No special perks, period.
No special airplane privileges, no special cars, no special benefits.
No big salary, no automatic retirement packages, no special health care.
None of it.

Things would change SO FAST

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Voice for Peace (Reply #7)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 06:20 PM

18. No gym, no free parking, no free meals,

no free day care, no free airport parking, no insider trading, no free mail for life.

And how about the voters are the ones who decide whether they get a raise or not. They should not be able to vote on their own raises and benefits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Panasonic (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 05:46 PM

8. The lobbyists decide what to pay them and/or family members. We have no say over that.

 

Now, if you had a way to tax the lobbyists at what the lobbyists receive and also have control over, at a 100% rate, count me in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Panasonic (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 05:47 PM

9. My late husband used to say...

That we should make them meet in a big tent out in the dessert in Arizona. In the summer time. His thought was that we should keep them there until they had passed the budget - through both houses and the conference committee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SouthernLiberal (Reply #9)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 07:57 PM

31. That's agood idea

Maybe Sheriff Joe could provide the pink jumpsuits and rancid baloney sandwiches

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Panasonic (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 05:52 PM

10. Per the Constitution no such change in compensation could take effect until 2015

Twenty-seventh 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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Panasonic (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 06:00 PM

12. K&R

I like it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Panasonic (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 06:04 PM

13. hell yeah

Put them on hourly wages. They cannot get a raise unless everyone else also get a raise. No more free medical and dental till all others also get it. Also no retirement packages. See how they like living by their own rules.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krakfiend (Reply #13)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 06:16 PM

17. That could be said for all federal employees

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Panasonic (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 06:24 PM

19. there is actually an unintended negative side effect when elected officials are paid a low salary

It tends to limit office seekers and holders to the independently wealthy and makes it unattractive to people who might have to actually live on their salary. I remember this being an issue years with the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. But it happens elsewhere - legislatures, councils and other elected official positions end up being held by those who don't need the salary - in other words the independently wealthy. While at the same time - people of modest means don't seek the office in part because they know they will not be able to make ends meet or support their families on a low salary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Douglas Carpenter (Reply #19)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 07:23 PM

24. teachers do it... not for the perks, but because they are public servants.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Voice for Peace (Reply #24)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 07:56 PM

30. I still think it would be a mistake to limit political office holders only to those with independent

financial means - even more a millionaires club than it already is. A politician's life does require a fair amount of expenditures. No that they need our sympathy. But it should not be made unappealing to the modest income earner to such an extent that a modest income earner would be throwing away their careers and financial future simply for seeking public office. Considering the vast majority of people who run for office are not going to win and serve and many of them will only serve for a few years before they return to private life - There is obviously no equivalent of tenure for the office holder or any form of career stability. I would hate to see political office be expo facto limited to only the rich - even more so than it already is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Douglas Carpenter (Reply #30)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 10:04 PM

34. certainly it shouldn't be allowed. millionaires must donate the bulk of their wealth,

before being allowed to serve the public. That would work.
for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Douglas Carpenter (Reply #19)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 07:38 PM

25. not necessarily true

It would be true in the begining, until they realize that they have to work to earn their money and work with others so that everyone is treated fairly and equally. They abuse the system because they know they can. Take away that power and see how fast they work to make sure everyone is treated the same as them. Case in point, before the election, how was the demeanor of republicans? Now, how are they once they know that they have lost the election. More willing to comprimise, right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Panasonic (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 06:28 PM

20. Many of them are millionaires.

I don't think the number that depends on their congressional pay to live is very high. They aren't stupid. They know it's hard to get by on minimum wage. They just don't care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Panasonic (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 06:32 PM

21. Build a barracks down the street from the Capital Building. Pay them like the troops.

Stand in line with a tray for their food.

Edit: Also, automatic colonoscopy by the IRS and ethics review if your net worth rises more than 10% in a single year, while in office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Panasonic (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 06:33 PM

22. Great idea: let's make Congress even MORE of a "millionaire's club".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Panasonic (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 07:48 PM

26. That only helps if we also outlaw lobbying

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Panasonic (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 07:50 PM

27. I really dislike this kind of silliness

what's the point? They set their pay- and there's no way around that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #27)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 06:44 AM

41. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Panasonic (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 07:50 PM

28. I have a feeling that to many of them

their congressional pay is only a small part of what they're being paid, ultimately

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Panasonic (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 07:56 PM

29. too many of them are filthy rich

they are not in congress for the money
they are in congress for the POWER

they would just figure out another way to get paid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Panasonic (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 08:15 PM

32. So then only the independently wealthy could serve in Congress.

Right, that would really solve the problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Panasonic (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 10:46 PM

36. What we really need are term limits.

Serving in the House or Senate was not intended to be a lifetime career. One or two terms and then out...and no lifetime benefits.
There should also be extremely tight restrictions on who they can work for once they're out of office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluethruandthru (Reply #36)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 08:52 AM

45. Term limits? What if they start doing really good things?

"bluethruandthru, you're our best employee and we couldn't run this business without you. But, darn it, you've just been here too long and you have to go. Sorry."

And how can we dictate where someone can or cannot work?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Panasonic (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 02:22 AM

37. But that would make them more susceptible to corruption

and under-the-table bribery.

Maybe I should say even more susceptible to corruption and under-the-table bribery.

On third thought, maybe we should just pay them minimum wage and make them declare the bribery and corruption, especially the promises of good lobbyist jobs when they leave office.

Obama is a young man with two girls to educate. I wonder who will be paying him when he leaves the presidency. Anyone want to venture a guess. Do you think he will return to community organizing? I wouldn't hold my breath.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Panasonic (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 05:13 AM

38. I'd settle for them

having to take a drug test every three months and the results posted on the intertubes.

You do realize there are no "poor" people serving us in Congress, don't you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Panasonic (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 05:59 AM

39. David Eddings had a good suggestion in one of his books.

People are appointed to leadership positions, and when they are, all they own are put into the public coffer, to rise or sink alongside the prosperity of the nation. I think it was in his Tamuli series.

So I say, everyone elected to Congress or as President - their assets are taken from their control, and they get as much interest as the rise for the average American. If it doesn't improve, well then after 2/4/6 years they get the exact same amount back, no increase. If people are doing worse, they lose. If people are doing better, they get more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KitSileya (Reply #39)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 06:45 AM

42. How do you define the "average" American?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #42)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 08:01 AM

43. That is a good question.

Perhaps I should have written the "median" American instead? From what I understand of the numbers, the mean income of Americans is much higher than the median wage.

To be honest, I was being a bit facetious. It is just so galling to know that you practically have to be a millionaire to be elected to Congress. If their fortunes were directly tied to the welfare of most Americans, perhaps they wouldn't be so eager to implement policies that hurt people just to benefit corporations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Panasonic (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 08:06 AM

44. Works for me! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Panasonic (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:07 AM

47. They are all rich

They could not care less about their salary (for the most part, some exceptions, who are generally on our side anyway). If you want to hurt them, ban their health care and make them buy it on the open market like the rest of us, or even more so, ban them being able to lobby after they leave and ban all their immediate family from lobbying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Panasonic (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:14 AM

48. anyone know how many hours the average critter puts in? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Reply #48)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 03:03 PM

51. Voting and meeting with constituents?

or glad-handing and taking bribes? There are many facets to their job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Panasonic (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 03:01 PM

50. They do a lot less work than the guy who changes my oil

and they have health care and a pension.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Panasonic (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 03:36 PM

52. We underpaid trustees for several large land trusts here

and the result was that backroom deals benefitting the trustees financially happened all the time. People took the job for that objective.

That's why the Lunalilo trust has so little for the kupuna (elders). The land that was set aside to fund them forever was sold for pennies and bribes (basically) were paid to the trustees who were willing to do such a low paying job because of the opportunity to profit personally anyway.

http://www.lunalilo.org/services/history/ read between the lines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread