Posted on 01/25/2006 12:06:01 PM PST by Keyes2000mt
In light of the Abramoff scandal, there are many calls for reform. However, rather than making things better, it will as many past reforms have done, make things worse.
Take for example, the John McCain and the Campaign Finance Reformers told us that there was too much money in politics, and this was the reason behind the McCain-Feingold legislation. However, what they did not eliminate was the NEED for money.
There are two reforms that I believe are vital to making sure Congress works better.
You Get What You Pay For
Congressmen earn $162,100 per year which is a jaw-dropping figure for most Americans. Indeed many self-styled government reformers propose Congressional Pay as a good cash cow to slay. As good as it might feel to stick it to Congress, even if you made the Congressman position itself a volunteer position, it would save a mere $87.6 million in Salary, which would do nothing about our debt or deficit.
While $162,100 may be a great salary for most of us, it's a job many people can't afford to take, particularly with Congress' ethical restrictions on outside income. Consider a successful Lawyer or an Executive whose bringing home hundreds of thousands a year. In running for Congress, they must stop earning money for the time they're running they're campaign, and once elected they'll have their income cut while having to maintain a 2nd residence (be that an apartment or a home in the DC area.)
You want better Congressman, up the pay to Half a Million per year. In doing so, you'll get more people who are able to run AND you'll also end one source of special interest corruption. Many members of Congress after they retire become lobbyists. As lobbyists, they earn more than they could ever hope to as Congressmen. Of course, they've got to be friendly to industry while in office, if they want a shot at the job. By raising Congressional Salary, K Street will become less attractive.
Also, I think Congress needs incentive pay, just like the CEOs of big corporations get. If a Congress can balance the budget without using Social Security, I think every member should get a million dollar tax-free bonus. I'd support smaller bonuses to get it down, like give them $50,000 to get it down to $200 billion and $100,000 to get it down to $100 billion. If it lead to real reductions in the deficit or our national debt, it'd be money well-spent.
The issue here is how can the US government attract more quality employees to these Congressional seats. The answer is by paying more and providing incentives for the type of behaviors we want.
Let the Money Flow
As I mentioned before, money is needed in politics like never before. If you want to limit the influence pedaling in Washington, one key thing you can do is scrap our counterproductive campaign finance laws.
Candidates spend hours upon hours hobnobbing with big money people, sending out fundraising letters and trying to scrape together enough $2,000 donations to run a campaign.
This doesn't eliminate the influence of money in politics, it enhances it, and makes Congressmen the slaves of hundreds of special interests.
What I advocate is eliminating all corporate and labor union contributions, along with PACs and having individuals contribute whatever they want to a campaign, as long as the donation's fully disclosed.
In doing so, we'll reduce congressional fundraising time, as well as the power of special interests to control hundreds of congressmen. We'll also open up the process to candidates who may not be able to get fundraising connections, but can get some start up money from a sympathetic benefactor.
Of course, there may be attempts to buy Congressmen, but with full disclosure, large contributions will be a news item so we'll know who exactly is financing a candidate.
It may be counterintuitive, but its what will work and that's what our Country should be focused on.
Better yet, pay them nothing but room and board and have congress in session twice a year for two weeks.
2 terms. Citizen government.
OK. Pay them more and restrict them to only 2 staff members, with term limits on all of them to be 6 years only.
Serve and go home.
make them work only in DC 4 months of the year.
One month in DC, 2 MANDATORY back home. Repeat 4 times a year. They must live around and with the people they represent.
Keeps them from being there all the time to pass their stupid laws, and makes it harder for lobbyists to cozy up to all of them.
I know this is an unpopular opnion but I say amen to paying them more. Esp as to represenatives on the State level also. Regardless of your philosophy these jobs will always be full time jobs because I often find the people of the district demand it. I worked in a congressmans office one summer and I was amazed what people expected us to do. But each had to be researched and responded too. The main reason is that alot of people would be great politicians but unless your mega rich its not an option. Sad but true. I think alot of people who think of running for office realize this reality and unfort dont run.
Yep. 90% of the professional politicains are less than worthless.
Well, yeah. I think back to 1992 when Alan Keyes paid himself a salary out of his campaign funds, so that he could run, there was a huge hue and cry, but if he hadn't, he couldn't have made Mortgage.
I dont understand this attitude really. I worked for a ton of Republican officeholders getting them elected. Maybe an occasion bad apple but most really sacrifice. I never understand this view of tearing down our own leaders
Give me a friggin break! Given the logic here, clearly the answer is to elect only WalMart associates and burger flippers, which, really, is a fantastic idea. At least they'll be above minimum wage and have decent health insurance.
For virtually all those successful lawyers and CEOs it's the power and the powerful connections they're after, not the salary. Let's be honest: Increasing the salaries to $1 million a year wouldn't even stop this political whoring.
Here's a suggestion: keep the salary the same and make it a part-time job. It certainly would cut down on the endless speechifying and posturing. Probably would cut down on the sheer size of the bills too. Keep the speechifying short and the bills clean. And for the truly needy congressmen, offer them section 8 vouchers for their housing expenses.
While I'd like shorter sessisons, you're adding extra expenses. They're basically stuck in Hotels which are more expensive and pricy. If you could reduce congressional sessions to 3 months straight that'd work.
Let me tell you this, though. If you think making them go home eight months year will help, think again. The fact is that in any district, you can find an elitist clique and Congressman have a way of finding them.
That would only work if each one was limited to a single term. Health insurance the only benefit, and that only paying their present premium.
Most of these a$$holes should not be paid minimum wage.
Really though, no member of Congress should at all ever be paid a cent more than the lowest ranking member of our military.
A lot of people don't run because of the pay cut. If you've got a house that depends on $350,000 income and you cut that in half AND have to stay somewhere else year round, its really expensive. A lot of people don't run because of the pay cut.
Those who are running are in it for the power, if you could get the pay up, you're going to increase the type of people who run who are more concerned with making their family do well.
One problem to this philosophy of keep thenmout of Washington is that they would be often out of the loop. There was a great British show called "yes Minister" that followed the fictional minister of the civil service. That series pretty much showed the reality of an out of control civil service that had more power thatn the ministers in some cases. I know we often dont see 99 percent of hearings on hill. Its not all Biden talikng for hours. For instance Hearings in front of the Fisheries committe might not be very sexy but its often important. The trade off is that if Congressmen arent there in oversight capacities the decisons will be made by a huge burecracy further taking us out of the loop.
We need to be strict about these sorts of things. If you want to write a book...knock yourself out. But you cannot take an advance on the book sales and any purchases by labor unions are a penalty to your earnings.
The article doesn't talk about all the perks the congresspeople receive in lieu of cash. Plus, the fact that these congresspeople gives themselves a raise or two each year. Nah, we don't want to talk about these hidden bennies.
The more money you pay them, the less likely they'll care about that free vacation or gas grill from a lobbyist.
I consider 10% of politicians to be good eggs. Since its a 50/50 split nominally, that means 20% of GOPers I consider helpful, the rest, middling at best. I can't think of more than a handful of Senators I'd want to see making laws (leading). The House is a little better.
And having them as full time politicians makes for more scheming and tinkering than I care to think about. Probably 1/2 of the federal laws in this country should not exist. They have gone so far beyond the bounds of the constitution, IMO, that they should spend the next decade repealing laws and devolving control back to the states where it belongs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.