Write Review
1,982,504 Total Reviews 3,981 New Reviews
9,835 Users Online

Politics and Religion

mari, you could certainly argue that case as it has.......
jerseyflyer 20 Reviews 1537 reads
posted

good points, but in reality, members of Congress spend most of their time running for reelection in their home states. They are in session for 3 days/week, Tuesday-Thursday. The rest of the time, they spend looking for ways to bring federal/taxpayers' money to their home states to buy influence in that state. Sen Robert Byrd, (Dem), WV,  was a master at that scam. He used federal money to build buildings in WV that no one wanted. The FBI Fingerprinting Data Bank building is a prime example. The FBI wanted no part of it, but was forced to relocate, at great expense, after the construction was completed.

You could rightfully argue that Congress is involved in international treaties, federal judicial appointments, declarations of war, which are major concerns, but the majority of the work they do has a direct influence on their home state constituents. As such, the constituents should have a say in what their representatives' compensation is. I've always believed in a day's pay for a day's work. At the present, we are not getting that from congress, yet they continue to get annual, federal pay raises, which they don't even have to vote on. It's automatic, unless they vote against it. The two senators from NJ, Lautenberg and Menendez, are a waste of oxygen. Their only achievements thus far have been to fatten the bank accounts of their politically connected friends, at our expense.

jerseyflyer3129 reads

hotly debated by a group of my friends just lately. As I've mentioned before, a bunch of us retired pilots, or airport bums, have not much better to do than hang out at the local aerodrome, and solve the world's problems, or attempt to. One topic that has been a recurring theme was brought up by a few of the more fiscally conservative old farts, (me for one). It involves just exactly who should pay the salaries and perks for the 535 members of Congress.

The members of Congress do not work for the federal government. They work for, and supposedly represent, the constituents of their respective states. Several are of the opinion that Congress' salaries and perks should, therefore, be paid by said states, not the federal government. Changes need to be made to get them off the taxpayers' backs of states they do not represent. Why should the taxpayers of North Dakota for instance, with their few members, pay for the few dozen members of California, or New york? I don't know exactly how much the total cost the 535 members charge to the federal budget each year, but I can estimate it is a substantial amount.

Appreciate any comments and criticisms you may have, and I'm sure some will say this is nuts, lol.

ReplyQuoteReport
joleneineugene1563 reads

Related Link: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congresspay.htm

ReplyQuoteReport
jerseyflyer1397 reads

Thanks for the link jolene. I'd be curious to know what the annual costs are in addition to their salaries. Things such as office staff, franking privileges, healthcare premiums, travel, freebies, etc. At one time I read that for a freshman congressman, it was $1.2 million/year, but that was some time ago.

ReplyQuoteReport
anonymousfun1401 reads

Considering the fact fact that they get "pork" for their respective states. Now that's a budget cut I whole heartedly support.

Another way of looking at it they are lobbying for their respective states.

ReplyQuoteReport
charlie4451699 reads

capitalist's lackeys!

ReplyQuoteReport
Fair_Use1203 reads

They don't represent their State either.  Let the people they represent pay their salary.

ReplyQuoteReport
charlie4451401 reads

lackeys paying lackeys.

ReplyQuoteReport
inicky461696 reads

...is a petition that's been circulating on the Internet that would require Congress to be subject to all the laws they pass regarding the rest of us.  Including health care, but all the rest, too.  In fact, one of the new Tea Party Republicans (sadly only one of them) had the integrity to refuse the Congressional health care package and keep paying for his own.
PS: Don't mistake me for a Tea Partier.  I'm quite the opposite.  But give credit where credit is due.

ReplyQuoteReport
inicky463258 reads

Related Link: http://www.petitiononline.com/CRA2010/petition.html

ReplyQuoteReport
holeydiver1322 reads

They represent a political party, an agenda, a dogma and a few corresponding special interests. Tax payers foot the bill because they know they will.

Posted By: jerseyflyer
hotly debated by a group of my friends just lately. As I've mentioned before, a bunch of us retired pilots, or airport bums, have not much better to do than hang out at the local aerodrome, and solve the world's problems, or attempt to. One topic that has been a recurring theme was brought up by a few of the more fiscally conservative old farts, (me for one). It involves just exactly who should pay the salaries and perks for the 535 members of Congress.

The members of Congress do not work for the federal government. They work for, and supposedly represent, the constituents of their respective states. Several are of the opinion that Congress' salaries and perks should, therefore, be paid by said states, not the federal government. Changes need to be made to get them off the taxpayers' backs of states they do not represent. Why should the taxpayers of North Dakota for instance, with their few members, pay for the few dozen members of California, or New york? I don't know exactly how much the total cost the 535 members charge to the federal budget each year, but I can estimate it is a substantial amount.

Appreciate any comments and criticisms you may have, and I'm sure some will say this is nuts, lol.

ReplyQuoteReport
marikod1444 reads

are employees of the federal government. Most of the work they perform is in fact work for the United States rather than for their individual states.

     They certainly try to represent the interests of their states in passing federal legislation but again most of their time is spent on purely federal interests. So it makes sense that they be paid by the federal government and be entitled to fed retirement benefits and medical care.

ReplyQuoteReport
jerseyflyer1538 reads

good points, but in reality, members of Congress spend most of their time running for reelection in their home states. They are in session for 3 days/week, Tuesday-Thursday. The rest of the time, they spend looking for ways to bring federal/taxpayers' money to their home states to buy influence in that state. Sen Robert Byrd, (Dem), WV,  was a master at that scam. He used federal money to build buildings in WV that no one wanted. The FBI Fingerprinting Data Bank building is a prime example. The FBI wanted no part of it, but was forced to relocate, at great expense, after the construction was completed.

You could rightfully argue that Congress is involved in international treaties, federal judicial appointments, declarations of war, which are major concerns, but the majority of the work they do has a direct influence on their home state constituents. As such, the constituents should have a say in what their representatives' compensation is. I've always believed in a day's pay for a day's work. At the present, we are not getting that from congress, yet they continue to get annual, federal pay raises, which they don't even have to vote on. It's automatic, unless they vote against it. The two senators from NJ, Lautenberg and Menendez, are a waste of oxygen. Their only achievements thus far have been to fatten the bank accounts of their politically connected friends, at our expense.

ReplyQuoteReport
willywonka4u1078 reads

A few thoughts. Congressional pay and it's staff isn't very much of the overall budget. Keep that in mind. We're talking pennys on the dollar in the overall budget.

I also remember seeing some time ago that the most populated states (NY, Cali, etc) actually receive less in services to what they pay in taxes than the least populated states (like North Dakota). You could actually call that a redistribution of wealth from the wealthy states to the shit-kicker states. :)

Another aspect of this, is that Congressional pay is intensionally high. Part of the reason for this is that at least in my home state of VA, in order to officially run for office, you have to front a percentage of the pay you'd get to get on the ballot. I think it's like 5 or 10 percent. The higher the Congressional pay, the harder it is for average people to run for office. I don't know if this is the case in other states.

I think it would be a good idea for Congressional pay to come out of state budgets. If your representative is doing a lousy job, and the state is in deep debt doo-doo, then there would be no money to pay your Congressmen. It might create the incentive for them to do their damn jobs. :)

Interesting idea Jersey. If you have others ideas like this to toss around, please post them! Stuff like this is always fun to ponder.

ReplyQuoteReport
jerseyflyer2532 reads

willy, a penny saved is a penny saved. It all adds up in the end. Save a million here, a million there, a few billion from that department's budget, eventually you're talking real money. Gotta start somewhere. My dear, departed Dad would have made an excellent federal comptroller. Being from Switzerland, his philosophy was, if you don't have the cash to pay for it, don't buy it.

Of course, the opposite was my ex....she was an expert at deficit spending, that's why she is an ex...lol.

ReplyQuoteReport
willywonka4u2001 reads

...unless it costs you more pennies to do the work required to save it, then you end up keeping.

That's why I say when it comes to budget issues, start big. Defense. Health and Human Services. Intelligence & Security. Worry about the crumbs later.

But interesting idea, regardless. And hey, how often do we agree on something Jersey?

ReplyQuoteReport
jerseyflyer1002 reads

at least we don't ignore each other, and not much name calling going on either, lol.

ReplyQuoteReport
SteveO57111185 reads

My only concern with what you're sugesting is the form of the government over the next several years.  In the event conservitive republican views are fully implimented, the states will be much more on thier own.  This can cause major resorce im balances by state.

I'm not as concerned about basic salary of the congress person as I am of the resorces for thier office.

ReplyQuoteReport
Post Reply Back To Forum
Register Now!