you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 16 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

I agree on spirit, but in practice this will just make them even easier to be bought.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 17 hours ago* (1 child)

    I think this is overstated. You can't even run for Congress without being a millionaire, a millionaire's family, a lawyer, a lobbyist, or a military officer looking to cash out.

    You can't get in the door of Congress without being in hoc to a constellation of private interests. Capping their pay won't change that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 17 hours ago (1 child)

    you got a point. Also I think that they get bought of either way, so why not safe a little on their salary ;)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 17 hours ago

    Because Congress sets its own salary. I don't. So, I have no say in the matter.

    Also because there's no real "cost savings" in a material sense. Congressional spending has been decoupled from federal taxation since the Great Depression. Pay congressmen $1/term. Pay them $1M/hr. I don't see any kind of change in my material condition.

    Incidentally, the Gingrich Era Contract with America was billed as a legislation package to rein in the capacity for Congresscritters to personally enrich and profiteer off their positions. Similarly, Pelosi's For The People Act included a number of reforms intended to prevent Congress from double-dealing and insider trading. Despite both Speakers enjoying a bicameral majority and a friendly President during their careers, neither successfully advanced legislation to handcuff members of Congress.

    Asking Congress to regulate itself is a fool's request.

  • source
  • parent