1y ago

Retiring House Republican says $174,000 isn't enough money for members of Congress: 'Most of us don't have wealth'

www.businessinsider.com Retiring House Republican says $174,000 isn't enough money for members of Congress: 'Most of us don't have wealth'

He's not alone: AOC and others have argued lawmakers should be paid more in order to protect against corruption and make the job more accessible.

politics @lemmy.world

MicroWave @lemmy.world

1y ago

Retiring House Republican says $174,000 isn't enough money for members of Congress: 'Most of us don't have wealth'

www.businessinsider.com /patrick-mchenry-lawmaker-pay-not-enough-money-congress-2024-1

517 227

You're viewing a single thread.

111 comments

It might still be true that someone could be refused a top secret clearance if they had too many debts. The theory is that if someone is under financial strain, they're easier to bribe.
As much as it might not feel good, it might be logical to pay congresspeople more, if it can be shown it makes them less susceptible to bribery.
And, while $174,000 seems like a lot, even someone like AOC thinks it's not enough. One problem is that they're legally required to have two residences, one in their district, and another one in DC. So, she needs to pay full-time rent on a place in DC ($2500 / month) and her district in NY (say $2000 / month). That's $54k per year just on rent. I don't know what the other costs are, but the people who get to congress who aren't rich already often seem to struggle.
To me it makes sense that congressional reps be paid enough that they're not under any financial strain. It means it's harder to bribe them, and that they can focus on doing their job instead of on their personal finances.
- I don't mind paying them more. Make it a lucrative career. You know what... Why not $5mil/year. Attract the best and the brightest... Maybe.
  But make the consequences count. Any hint of malfeasance... Any remote indication that they are betraying the will of the people, make them pay it all back and put them in jail. Like... We see that you took money from Comcast, then voted favorably on their bill. Jail.
  
  I don't know about $5m per year, but based on the importance of the job, a high six-figure salary makes sense. But, yeah, that has to be paired with a contract / oath that locks them down much more than an ordinary person. Instead of getting a free pass to do insider trading, any insider trading is punished harshly. Instead of a revolving door between congress and lobbying, require at least 5 years between leaving congress and doing any kind of lobbying work.
  It should be the same sort of deal with being a supreme court justice. It should be a job where you never have money worries. But, also one where you're forbidden from getting any other income or substantial gifts. If you want to be a motivational speaker as a justice, great, but you can't make a cent doing that. If you want to write a book, wonderful, but as a justice anything you write (even on your own time) immediately goes into the public domain.
- Or...instead...why not just have a residence building in DC for various representatives? Why are they furnishing their own spaces? Just give them a dorm room for their term and have them clear out when they are voted out or reach term limits.
  
  Do you want good representatives who are unlikely to be bribed? Or do you want desperate people who live miserable lives and would jump at the chance at some money?
  
  Did you reply to the wrong person?
  If they would become corrupt because they have to live in a dorm room when traveling for work, then they shouldn't be given any power at all.
- One problem is that they're legally required to have two residences, one in their district, and another one in DC
  They are not required to have a residence in DC, many members of Congress sleep in their offices to save money. There's nothing saying they couldn't commute to work.
  Also, the House only meets for 4-5 hours, approximately 160 days a year, and they regularly skip sessions.
  
  They are not required to have a residence in DC, many members of Congress sleep in their offices to save money
  They're not allowed to do that though. Most of them get away with it, but it's against the rules.
  There’s nothing saying they couldn’t commute to work.
  From California?
  
  They’re not allowed to do that though. Most of them get away with it, but it’s against the rules.
  Do you have a source on that, because when I googled it the only thing to come up was Jackie Speier recommending banning it in 2020. There is even a recent Business Insider which talks about Mike Johnson doing it and makes no reference to it being against any rules.
  https://www.businessinsider.com/speaker-mike-johnson-sleep-in-his-capitol-hill-office-2023-11
  Here is a 2015 NPR article that says there are no rules against it https://www.npr.org/2015/12/26/458207661/meet-the-lawmakers-who-sleep-shower-work-all-on-capitol-hill
  From California?
  How about Arlington or Alexandria?
  
  The building isn't rated as a residence, so it's most likely a fire code violation to use it as a residence. Aside from that:
  squatters benefit from free utilities, cable TV and internet access, and cleaning services. This may violate congressional ethics rules, which prohibit members from using official resources for anything other than incidental personal needs. At the least, lodging on government premises should be treated as a taxable fringe benefit -- in the same way that congressional parking spaces are.
  https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-04-06/u-s-lawmakers-shouldn-t-be-sleeping-in-their-offices
  So, while there isn't a rule that says specifically "congresspeople may not sleep in their offices", there are all kinds of rules about what constitutes housing in DC that are not met by congressional offices:
  https://dob.dc.gov/service/dc-housing-code-standards
  https://realestateinthedistrict.com/is-your-dc-bedroom-legal/
  How about Arlington or Alexandria?
  That's still going to be a second residence, it may not be a $2500/month residence, but it's not going to be free.
  
  That’s still going to be a second residence, it may not be a $2500/month residence, but it’s not going to be free.
  I think you're confused by my original reply, I wasn't saying it should be free or that they could just drive from their primary residence. I was saying that using the cost of DC housing as a reason for higher pay doesn't make sense when they don't have to live in DC itself. It's perfectly reasonable that they may have to have a place outside of DC and commute in.
  So, while there isn’t a rule that says specifically “congresspeople may not sleep in their offices”, there are all kinds of rules about what constitutes housing in DC that are not met by congressional offices:
  Part of the issue is that you're applying normal rules to an abnormal group. Traditionally I would agree with you that people shouldn't sleep in their work offices, but this is hardly the weirdest thing that is normal in Congress. Also it doesn't really matter if it meets the fire code or DCs building standards, Federal law has priority over local law. Even the DC Fire Code specifically says that it does not apply to any building or premises owned by the US Government.
  Heck, there are a ton of special laws which Congress has passed which only apply to Congress, including prohibiting DC local government from charging property tax or income tax on Congressmen. There are even laws regarding allowances that Congressmen get which essentially says that there are quantifiable benefits of the job which cannot be counted as income for taxes.
  The only rule that matters is whether Congress has specifically blocked it.
  EDIT: I just double checked and the DOB link you sent says at the very top
  "The Department of Buildings (DOB) is mandated to ensure public health, safety, and welfare by enforcing property maintenance codes on all residential and non-residential structures in the District of Columbia, excluding federal government buildings."

111 comments