Well, he's nothing if not a true Conservative.

It would give Mrs Pelosi that much more time to drain the swamp and focus on her insider trading stock deals.

USA!

Oh sh*t, he's gone full Texan. You NEVER go full Texan!

Can we just stop pretending like Obama has even the smallest chance at losing the election? What more do people want from the clowns running against him?

"It's limited government by design because they're not here messing things up."

Spoken like a true Fark Independent.

imapirate: Can we just stop pretending like Obama has even the smallest chance at losing the election? What more do people want from the clowns running against him?

You underestimate the stupidity of the American public. Also keep in mind more people vote for their next "American Idol" than vote for their next President.

I'm seriously just gonna copy this post from Yglesias, its so on point:

Problems with this stupid plan

One is that if members of Congress need to work second jobs, their business relationships will involve conflicts of interest.

A second is that to the extent that earning extra income takes up more of members of Congress' time, they'll become more dependent on lobbyists and special interest groups for information and assistance with their projects.

A third is that lower pay tends to induce legislators to retire sooner, and less-senior legislators are more dependent on lobbyists and special interest groups for information and assistance with their projects.

A fourth is that to the extent you cut legislators' pay, a larger share of the real compensation for doing legislative work is the opportunity to "cash in" after you leave office.

A fifth and related consideration is that to the extent you cut legislators' pay, a larger share of the real compensation for doing legislative work is the ability to raise PAC and campaign funds that you spend on yourself.

Last, but by no means least, to the extent that you reduce the desirability of winning re-election, you encourage members of the legislature to ignore their constituents in favor of pleasing others.

He's also lying

It's also worth observing that Perry's notion that congressional pay is scandalously high is mistaken. Matt Glassman observes that real wages for members of Congress have been nearly stagnant over a 100 year time frame:



The decline in congressional compensation over the past 20 years, in particular, has likely tended to have a corrupting influence on the legislative process.

I support Perry's plan to ban cellphones and replace them with telegraph keys.

This plan has absolutely no chance of backfiring...

Seriously, Rick, maybe you should concentrate on leading your State than worrying about the nation...

monoski: Edsel: To be honest, the only thing that will cause him to lose is that his supporters are becoming complacent.

That is a big risk! Americans have the attention span of

FTFY.

DamnYankees: I'm seriously just gonna copy this post from Yglesias, its so on point:

Problems with this stupid plan

One is that if members of Congress need to work second jobs, their business relationships will involve conflicts of interest.

A second is that to the extent that earning extra income takes up more of members of Congress' time, they'll become more dependent on lobbyists and special interest groups for information and assistance with their projects.

A third is that lower pay tends to induce legislators to retire sooner, and less-senior legislators are more dependent on lobbyists and special interest groups for information and assistance with their projects.

A fourth is that to the extent you cut legislators' pay, a larger share of the real compensation for doing legislative work is the opportunity to "cash in" after you leave office.

A fifth and related consideration is that to the extent you cut legislators' pay, a larger share of the real compensation for doing legislative work is the ability to raise PAC and campaign funds that you spend on yourself.

Last, but by no means least, to the extent that you reduce the desirability of winning re-election, you encourage members of the legislature to ignore their constituents in favor of pleasing others.

He's also lying

It's also worth observing that Perry's notion that congressional pay is scandalously high is mistaken. Matt Glassman observes that real wages for members of Congress have been nearly stagnant over a 100 year time frame:

[thinkprogress.org image 481x290]

The decline in congressional compensation over the past 20 years, in particular, has likely tended to have a corrupting influence on the legislative process.

Agreed completely. Most third-world countries have low-paid public servants, who are then highly motivated to use the power at their fingertips to line their pockets in other ways.

What's wrong with him? Everyone knows we need expand government to twice it's current size and beyond.

This is nothing but more pandering to the idiot Teabaggers...

And they'll eat it up that shiat sandwich like it was manna from heaven.

DamnYankees: I'm seriously just gonna copy this post from Yglesias, its so on point:

Problems with this stupid plan

One is that if members of Congress need to work second jobs, their business relationships will involve conflicts of interest.

A second is that to the extent that earning extra income takes up more of members of Congress' time, they'll become more dependent on lobbyists and special interest groups for information and assistance with their projects.

A third is that lower pay tends to induce legislators to retire sooner, and less-senior legislators are more dependent on lobbyists and special interest groups for information and assistance with their projects.

A fourth is that to the extent you cut legislators' pay, a larger share of the real compensation for doing legislative work is the opportunity to "cash in" after you leave office.

A fifth and related consideration is that to the extent you cut legislators' pay, a larger share of the real compensation for doing legislative work is the ability to raise PAC and campaign funds that you spend on yourself.

Last, but by no means least, to the extent that you reduce the desirability of winning re-election, you encourage members of the legislature to ignore their constituents in favor of pleasing others.

He's also lying

It's also worth observing that Perry's notion that congressional pay is scandalously high is mistaken. Matt Glassman observes that real wages for members of Congress have been nearly stagnant over a 100 year time frame:

[thinkprogress.org image 481x290]

The decline in congressional compensation over the past 20 years, in particular, has likely tended to have a corrupting influence on the legislative process.



Ummmm...*taps shoulder* You DO realize that there is not a financial ceiling that these people reach which causes them to say, "I don't need a job after I leave office". Not one of the points addresses greed. And that is the root of these problems. The argument that you HAVE to keep them paid to make sure they don't steal from you doesn't work for welfare recipients and it shouldn't work for Congressmen.

DROxINxTHExWIND: You DO realize that there is not a financial ceiling that these people reach which causes them to say, "I don't need a job after I leave office". Not one of the points addresses greed.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. No one disagrees with this. All we're saying is that this stuff lies on a spectrum, and that Perry's plan just makes things worse as opposed to better.

DamnYankees: It's also worth observing that Perry's notion that congressional pay is scandalously high is mistaken. Matt Glassman observes that real wages for members of Congress have been nearly stagnant over a 100 year time frame:



The decline in congressional compensation over the past 20 years, in particular, has likely tended to have a corrupting influence on the legislative process.

I'm not buying that "real wage" thing. $175,000 is more than enough to live off of, especially considering all of the other perks that come along with being a Congressional representative.

This is where I am getting my info...

Source 1 (new window)
Source 2 (new window)

I think the best course of action for all federal officials is to pay them the median salary of the nation plus a fair COLA / annual raise. Their 2.8% COLA sounds reasonable. The last two places I have worked would give you a yearly job performance review and a raise of 0-4% based on job performance. If the economy tanks their salary goes down. If the economy goes up their salary goes up.

I realize that this is entirely too simplistic, but as a base from which to work it seems fair to me. Of course, I am also biased as to the validity of my own opinion.

hasty ambush: If you want to reduce corruption-you have to reduce their power. You could do that by returning to the confines of the constitutional box they have escaped from by realizing that the Federal government powers are supposed to be limited, which of course means less power there by less corruption.

This is nice, but it's a completely different issue.

1) What Congress has the power to do.
2) What congress is paid and how long they can keep their jobs.

These are two entirely different things.

bgddy24601: I'm not buying that "real wage" thing.

What do you mean you're not "buying" it? Like, you don't believe in math?

imapirate: Can we just stop pretending like Obama has even the smallest chance at losing the election? What more do people want from the clowns running against him?

if the turnout will be the same as the last election, sure. But the problem is i don't think the 18-30 crowd will be voting this time.

GaryPDX: What's wrong with him? Everyone knows we need expand government to twice it's current size and beyond.


Way to go, man! Pound the stuffin' out of it!

sprawl15: GaryPDX: What's wrong with him?

I'm thinking a brain tumor.

It's probably Texas-sized.

DamnYankees: What do you mean you're not "buying" it? Like, you don't believe in math?

What I mean is that like pretty much anything else, numbers can be skewed to give someone whatever result they are looking for. In this case what I am saying is that I am not questioning his math, I am questioning the need to point out that someone whose starting salary is $175,000 (and if they are elected to the Senate they are guaranteed a full vesting into the pension fund since it only takes 5 years to get fully vested) is not in fact scandalously high. And when you factor in the annual COLA of 2.8%, a freshman Senator is making over $200,000 / year by the time they are up for re-election (not including any pay raises they vote to give themselves).

Add to that an average work schedule of well under 200 days per year (looks to be an average of about 140 between the two, but the Senate is usually in session more days than the House by a significant margin - Source (it is about 1/4 of the way down the page if that far) (new window) and while their pay might be stagnant according to that chart you posted, according to another chart from that same site they are not exactly hurting right now



Notice the median household income. More than a few families have either two people working in the household or one person with a second job. Many of those have both (or at least they did when their were more jobs to be had). This is the salary just for the Congressman (sorry about the lack of gender neutrality. "Congressperson" just looks silly). Their spouse is in not restricted from working, so that is an option for them if they can't get by on $175,000.

I'm not trying to be snarky or belligerent or anything. I just think that pointing out how their salaries have remained stagnant if compared to what they made in 1913 if you figure out what the 1913 salary would be in today's economy is a trifling argument. How much they would have made or how much they could have made if this or that is an exercise in futility. The facts are that a single Congressman walking in to work on the first day that their first ever term is starting is making 3x what the median salary is of an entire family of the country that they represent (median salaries for individual states not pertaining to the argument since Mr. Glassman is using numbers based on national averages). And that is kind of asinine, at least to my sensibilities.