Congressional pay

19 posts / 0 new
Last post
AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561
Congressional pay

Rick Nolan, Dem Rep, Introduces Bill Blocking Congressional Pay During Government Shutdown

Do you think members of congress should get paid during a shutdown?

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561

I think any law passed would have to wait to take effect until the next term, but that it still would be a good law to pass. I think it should apply to congress, the senate, and the President.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

I think they should all donate their pay to charity like Ted Cruz is. Maybe to a fund for those hurt by the furlough.

Senator Ted Cruz

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

I think it should apply to congress, the senate, and the President.

Secret Psssstttt.... The Senate is part of Congress.

I don't think we should even need a bill like this. If Congress doesn't do its job, it shouldn't get paid, and that should just be common sense since it applies to everyone else in the country. The law I want to see passed would say that, if they can't pass a budget or come to a solution to keep the government from shutting down, then they all get locked in chambers until they do, and fined $1000 per day per legislator for every day they go over. I don't care if it's the weekend or someone's wedding day or their wife is having a baby, you stay there until you DO YOUR DAMNED JOB.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3312

"Spacers" wrote:

Secret Psssstttt.... The Senate is part of Congress.

I don't think we should even need a bill like this. If Congress doesn't do its job, it shouldn't get paid, and that should just be common sense since it applies to everyone else in the country. The law I want to see passed would say that, if they can't pass a budget or come to a solution to keep the government from shutting down, then they all get locked in chambers until they do, and fined $1000 per day per legislator for every day they go over. I don't care if it's the weekend or someone's wedding day or their wife is having a baby, you stay there until you DO YOUR DAMNED JOB.

I'm torn because while i can agree they aren't conceptually doing their job....they are working. Its not like they are home watching tv. I think its more accurate to say they aren't doing their job well.

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1686

Yes, I do think they should continue to get paid. Sometimes a government shutdown may be necessary. In this case, if all 535 voting members of congress weren't going to get paid until this is resolved, it could hamper the progress. I would hate to think my rep. (who is a Republican BTW) was willing to settle solely because he needs his paycheck.

I understand the idea behind it - they'll settle mighty quick if they're the ones feeling the hurt - but I don't believe that is the best course of action regardless of the circumstances. I want it to be a true, well thought-out resolution.

My opinion is not based on this specific shutdown but the idea of it.

ange84's picture
Joined: 12/28/09
Posts: 6564

I typed, it didn't make much sense, I'll try again later when not doped up on cold and flu tablets

Joined: 03/14/09
Posts: 624

All members of the government should be paid minimum wage. If it's good enough for the working poor, it's good enough for them.

Rivergallery's picture
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

I am of the view right now that the federal government shouldn't get paid period... it used to never get paid at all.. not sure why we are paying them.. anyway. Seems like they represented their constituents much better when they weren't out for the buck/special interests groups.. just a thought.. maybe get back to basics?

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1686

"Rivergallery" wrote:

I am of the view right now that the federal government shouldn't get paid period... it used to never get paid at all.. not sure why we are paying them.. anyway. Seems like they represented their constituents much better when they weren't out for the buck/special interests groups.. just a thought.. maybe get back to basics?

what do you mean by "it used to never get paid"?

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

what do you mean by "it used to never get paid"?

During the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin considered proposing that elected government officials not be paid for their service. Other Founding Fathers, however, decided otherwise.
From 1789 to 1855, members of Congress received only a per diem (daily payment) of $6.00 while in session, except for a period from December 1815 to March 1817, when they received $1,500 a year. Members began receiving an annual salary in 1855, when they were paid $3,000 per year.

US Congress Salaries and Benefits

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561

I do not think it is bad for congress to get paid. They have families and need to eat as well. They do not however, IMO need to make millions. I also do not think that if thousands of other Americans get a delay in their pay that Congress should be except from that.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

I agree with Kim. I don't really think that anyone should ever have to work for free, even if they are doing a poor job of it. But I also agree with Gloria that it would certainly be a gesture of good will to donate their pay for those days. But I also wouldn't cry a river if they didn't get paid. They make what, 174K a year?

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1686

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

US Congress Salaries and Benefits

that sounds like they've always been paid something.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

that sounds like they've always been paid something.

It sounds to me like before 1855 it was more like a reimbursement to cover costs, kind of like jury duty. From 1855 on they received an actual salary.

I don't have a problem with them being paid. Otherwise only rich people would be able to afford to do it. The cost of living in Washington D.C. is very high and they have to pay for a place to live in while in the Capitol, and at the same time maintain their real home in their state to go back to. If they have a family they also have to do a lot of traveling back and forth to see them. There are some abuses I have seen however that I strongly disagree with, like Pelosi using Air Force jets to travel home on. That to me is an extreme abuse of power.

Rivergallery's picture
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

It sounds to me like before 1855 it was more like a reimbursement to cover costs, kind of like jury duty. From 1855 on they received an actual salary.

I don't have a problem with them being paid. Otherwise only rich people would be able to afford to do it. The cost of living in Washington D.C. is very high and they have to pay for a place to live in while in the Capitol, and at the same time maintain their real home in their state to go back to. If they have a family they also have to do a lot of traveling back and forth to see them. There are some abuses I have seen however that I strongly disagree with, like Pelosi using Air Force jets to travel home on. That to me is an extreme abuse of power.

They will fly those carbon guzzlin jets but will limit our little petty prius's....and we have something other than "only rich people" in the government now? but I do understand what you are saying

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

There are some abuses I have seen however that I strongly disagree with, like Pelosi using Air Force jets to travel home on. That to me is an extreme abuse of power.

Not sure where you have your info from, but it's probably either wrong, or at least outdated since Nancy Pelosi is no longer Speaker of the House.

snopes.com: Nancy Pelosi's Jet

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Spacers" wrote:

Not sure where you have your info from, but it's probably either wrong, or at least outdated since Nancy Pelosi is no longer Speaker of the House.

snopes.com: Nancy Pelosi's Jet

I didn't say it was happening now, I was just using that as an example. I don't care if it was a bigger jet or a smaller jet or allowed by the rules or not, I still think it is an abuse of power to have an air force jet fly you home.

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

How is it an abuse of power? It's a right that has been specifically granted to the Speaker of the House since 9/11. The third person in line of succession was deemed (by President Bush!) to need to be able to travel as quickly and securely as possible between the Capitol and his or her home. I think that's quite reasonable. If there's a national emergency, I don't want Ms. Pelosi (or whoever is SOTH now) waiting in the check-in line at SFO or being diverted to Chicago because another passenger is having a heart attack; I want her on her way to Washington.