Why don't States pay their Senators and Reps?

[Swordsmyth]

Why let them pay themselves out of our pockets?
The state legislatures should set and provide their pay.

[heavenlyboy34]

Who else do you think is going to pay? Elected people are never going to use their own money for anything. They're parasites.

[Swordsmyth]

Who else do you think is going to pay? Elected people are never going to use their own money for anything. They're parasites.

Of course their pay will come from taxes, the point is that they should not be the ones to set their own pay/benefits.
The state legislatures should be the ones to pay them out of the state budget.

[Krugminator2]

Of course their pay will come from taxes, the point is that they should not be the ones to set their own pay/benefits.
The state legislatures should be the ones to pay them out of the state budget.

Is Congressional pay really a big issue? There already is a check on Congressional pay. People get outraged every time Congress considers a pay increase. That's why they don't increase salaries often.

Staffers get paid peanuts and live in a expensive area. Most Congressmen make less than they would in the private sector and have the expense of living in two places. They also give up a year of their life to run for Congress without a guarantee of winning.

[specsaregood]

Is Congressional pay really a big issue? There already is a check on Congressional pay. People get outraged every time Congress considers a pay increase. That's why they don't increase salaries often.

Staffers get paid peanuts and live in a expensive area. Most Congressmen make less than they would in the private sector and have the expense of living in two places. They also give up a year of their life to run for Congress without a guarantee of winning.

Let's look at the grift and how well their investments magically perform.

eg:

The study, “Abnormal Returns From the Common Stock Investments of Members of the U.S. House of Representatives,” is a real eye-opener. Using the financial disclosures of politicians, the research team built model portfolios and charted their performance. They found that House members “earn statistically significant positive abnormal returns,” outperforming the market by 6 percentage points.

Senators do even better, the authors say, citing their own earlier research from 2004. Senate portfolios “show some of the highest excess returns ever recorded over a long period of time, significantly outperforming even hedge fund managers,” with gains that are “both economically large and statistically significant.”

They beat the market, my friends, by 10 percentage points a year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/10/bu...ket-essay.html

[oyarde]

I have no problem with that . I really do not care about the salary though as much as benefits and terms .

[Krugminator2]

Let's look at the grift and how well their investments magically perform.

That is separate issue. I was speaking just of what the taxpayers have to shell out and for people who do things the right way.

I just rewatched the 60 Minutes from a few years back. That is pretty ridiculous how blatant members of Congress are with insider trading because it is legal for them.

[specsaregood]

That is separate issue. I was speaking just of what the taxpayers have to shell out and for people who do things the right way.

It is somewhat separate; but at the same time I thought it was worth mentioning when you talked about how "little" they make. Lets also not forget the other benefits like their lifetime pension for what 2 terms? 4 years? That's a hell of a pay off.

I just rewatched the 60 Minutes from a few years back. That is pretty ridiculous how blatant members of Congress are with insider trading because it is legal for them.

indeed it is.

[Swordsmyth]

Is Congressional pay really a big issue? There already is a check on Congressional pay. People get outraged every time Congress considers a pay increase. That's why they don't increase salaries often.

Staffers get paid peanuts and live in a expensive area. Most Congressmen make less than they would in the private sector and have the expense of living in two places. They also give up a year of their life to run for Congress without a guarantee of winning.

I have no problem with that . I really do not care about the salary though as much as benefits and terms .

It is somewhat separate; but at the same time I thought it was worth mentioning when you talked about how "little" they make. Lets also not forget the other benefits like their lifetime pension for what 2 terms? 4 years? That's a hell of a pay off.

The Benefits are they main issue and they do not get as much attention.
And I know that this is a smaller issue than many but the principle occurred to me and I thought it should be added to the conversation here.

[specsaregood]

The Benefits are they main issue and they do not get as much attention.
And I know that this is a smaller issue than many but the principle occurred to me and I thought it should be added to the conversation here.

yeah, let's call being exempt from insider trading laws a benefit too.

[Swordsmyth]

yeah, let's call being exempt from insider trading laws a benefit too.

I resent that as much as you do, but it is off the topic of this thread.

[r3volution 3.0]

I stared at the OP for about five minutes trying to make sense of it before I realized the title refers to federal senators and reps...

Anyway, having the states provide congressional pay wouldn't really make a difference IMO: not just because the amounts are trivial, but because the states have an incentive to grease their congressmen anyway, to get them to bring home the bacon, so it's not clear that pay would actually decline. It might even increase, as there would likely be less public scrutiny if compensation decisions were made at the state level.

[Swordsmyth]

I stared at the OP for about five minutes trying to make sense of it before I realized the title refers to federal senators and reps...

Anyway, having the states provide congressional pay wouldn't really make a difference IMO: not just because the amounts are trivial, but because the states have an incentive to grease their congressmen anyway, to get them to bring home the bacon, so it's not clear that pay would actually decline. It might even increase, as there would likely be less public scrutiny if compensation decisions were made at the state level.

Perhaps their compensation packages should require a nationwide vote then?
It is glaringly obvious that they should not get to decide what pay and benefits to give to themselves.

[r3volution 3.0]

Perhaps their compensation packages should require a nationwide vote then?

Which will cost how much?

It is glaringly obvious that they should not get to decide what pay and benefits to give to themselves.

If you want to avoid that, you could just eliminate compensation altogether - which was the historical norm in many places.

But it doesn't really matter.

Not paying them or paying them less won't improve their behavior (if anything, the opposite), and the pay itself is a pittance.

[Swordsmyth]

Which will cost how much?

Nothing if you attach it to the next Presidential or House election ballot.

[William Tell]

Maybe if we increased their pay by $1,000 per billion $ of real spending cuts they would change their behavior for the better.

[Swordsmyth]

Maybe if we increased their pay by $1,000 per billion $ of real spending cuts they would change their behavior for the better.

Or connect it to the deficit/surplus, no surplus no pay.

[r3volution 3.0]

Maybe if we increased their pay by $1,000 per billion $ of real spending cuts they would change their behavior for the better.

That would help, the Singaporean government does something like that with the bureaucrats.

Better yet, convert the US government into a joint stock company and divide the shares amongst them.

Then they'd be owners with rational incentives to increase the value of their property.

...rather than despoilers of a commons, as they are now.

[William Tell]

Or connect it to the deficit/surplus, no surplus no pay.

That would be far better. But there's no way they'd vote for that.

[r3volution 3.0]

That would be far better. But there's no way they'd vote for that.

...which is why none of these schemes is a good, long-term solution.

Aligning their incentives with whatever goal we have (increases in GDP, cuts in spending, whatever) doesn't accomplish much if they hold their jobs at the pleasure of people whose incentives aren't so aligned (i.e. voters and/or special interests). Think of the business world. You can pay a CEO in stock, but that doesn't do any good if the CEO serves at the pleasure of a board of directors who are paid a flat salary - the CEO will spend his time trying to please the board rather than trying to grow the company, even though it means lower income (lower income is better than getting fired).

Hence, if you really want to make Congress responsible, nix elections and make them owners.

[Swordsmyth]

That would be far better. But there's no way they'd vote for that.

We would need a Constitutional amendment, and a movement to push it.

[donnay]

It's the unseen money they get that troubles me more and influences their vote.