491
Retiring House Republican says $174,000 isn't enough money for members of Congress: 'Most of us don't have wealth'
(www.businessinsider.com)
this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2024
491 points (96.1% liked)
politics
19072 readers
5682 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There's an argument to be made for paying Congress enough where they can't easily be bought out by special interests. Right now Congress is generally attainable only for those with existing wealth.
Consider that you have to maintain your house in your home district, maintain a residence in DC (not cheap!), travel between DC/home district, pay off student/car/etc loans, etc. That's not including family obligations.
I'd like to see a comprehensive plan to pay those in Congress more, but in exchange, severely clamp down insider trading and limit how politicians can accept money to themselves and their campaigns from special interests.
i think theres also an argument about revisiting these requirements for homes in multiple jurisdictions. its 2024, we need to stop pretending everyone needs to be in the same room to accomplish nothing.
how about, when youre in washington here is the hotel you use. welcome to public service.
We know from the Clarence Thomas issues that some of them will never be satisfied with how much they legitimately make, and turn to more questionable income sources. Tying a raise to explicit ethics standards is key: clearly assuming they will do what’s right was too naive
No.
Thank you for a well-reasoned response.